5' Step Questions (Moved from House Rules)

[AGGEMAM]

I don't see a problem with the archer using a 5 foot step go get out of threat range simply because the opponent can on it's turn just take a 5 foot step forward and use it's full attack option, preferably sundering the bow first leaving one crying archer and then damage on all the remaining attacks.

Remember that in order make the 5 foot step in the first the archer must have room to backpedal and in dungeon conditions that will pretty quickly run out.

 

[Hypersmurf]

... preferably sundering the bow first leaving one crying archer and then damage on all the remaining attacks.

... assuming you're using FAQ Sunder, rather than Core Rules Sunder

-Hyp.

 

[AGGEMAM]

... assuming you're using FAQ Sunder, rather than Core Rules Sunder

But off course

 

[Ovinomancer]

Some valid points have been made, but step back a moment at look outside the round. Sure, a low level thief can step away from the high level fighter and toss a dagger, but next round the fighter mauls him. Complaining about a rule that doesn't seem realistic is fine, but take a look at the framework the rule is in. In this case, it is the combat round, which is unrealistic itself. But from outside the framework, in the big picture, it does a fairly good job of simulating combat. The 5-foot step is included to allow for dynamic combat in a simulated system. It, or something like it, would probably exist in a pure simultaneous system. To follow the sport reference, the head fake or stutter step can give a player the space necessary to perform a pass or shot while protecting the ball, unless the defender was 'ready' for it.

 

[S'mon]

I like the suggested rule that came up in the House Rules thread - if a 5' step is combined with an action that would otherwise provoke an AoO (like shooting a bow), then it provokes an AoO. The rationale is that the AoO-provoking action occurs 'during' the 5' step.

That seems much simpler than my suggestions, deals efficiently with the archer/potion-drinker/no-Conc spellcaster/etc problem, and adds a negligible amount of complexity. I like it a lot.

 

[Will]

So I was checking the FAQ to see what 'FAQ sunder' was being referenced, couldn't find it.

DID find that the Faq indicates that you can attack and get a 5' step with a readied action, so long as you didn't otherwise move. Interesting.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So I was checking the FAQ to see what 'FAQ sunder' was being referenced, couldn't find it.

According to the FAQ, Sunder can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or as an AoO.

According to the PHB, it's a standard action.

As far as the Readied 5' step and attack, that's clearly stated in the PHB anyway.

-Hyp.

 

[DarkMaster]

I tend to agree that the 5' step is Balanced, yup - to me that's not the problem. The problem is plausibility - the designers came up with a way to make archers (and spellcasters) _viable in a melee_ - presumably because most D&D combats take place in cramped underground conditions and forcing the archer to resort to a melee weapon would be 'unbalanced'. This is the same reason why archers have almost the same damage output as melee fighters do - they can typically drop an equivalent foe in 2-3 rounds of combat. It was a big shock to me when I first played 'Medieval Total War' with its realistic missile effects - Polish archers emptied their quivers into a standing unit of Byzantine infantry at close range - several minutes of fire and the archers killed less than one man each!
.

If you want to talk about reality take historic example not computer game (why would they do a better job than the D&D designer?), there is actually a well known battle (don't have my history book) during the 100 year war where the heavy french cavalry was completly wiped out by the english bowman, in the hand of a trained man a bow is a very deadly weapon.

You should be able to disable an average soldier with one or two arrow, like you should be able to kill it with a one or two longsword blow. The big shock for me would be to actually play MTW where looking at historic precedent I would expect the cavalery to be destroyed by my archer. Obviously if your unit had 10 archer and there was 10000 cavalery it's a different story.
It took a very long time for firearms to become as deadly as a trained archer. the only problem with the bow compared to the crossbow and the firearms is that you needed less training to be effective with them.

 

[Gort]

Nah, Agincourt wasn't won by the bow alone. It was won with stakes, mud, a narrow front that the French tried to squeeze too many people through, and men at arms protecting the archers.

In good conditions, a French cavalry unit would slaughter a group of English longbows while taking only minor casualties. The point was that the conditions were so abysmal that the French didn't have a chance to do that.

 

[DarkMaster]

Nah, Agincourt wasn't won by the bow alone. It was won with stakes, mud, a narrow front that the French tried to squeeze too many people through, and men at arms protecting the archers.

In good conditions, a French cavalry unit would slaughter a group of English longbows while taking only minor casualties. The point was that the conditions were so abysmal that the French didn't have a chance to do that.

Got my books.
Then how come after those three battles Crecy 1346, Poitier 1356 and Azincourt 1415 All three were decided by the strenght of the English bowmans, The french finally realised that they had to have strong archery unit. The archer became so powerfull that the king of France disbanded them, nobility being too scared of being overthrown by soldier coming from inferior class.

In Crecy 1346 6000 archer decided the victory in 90 minutes, bow were extremely efficient and powerfull, there are story of heavy cavalery nailed to their horses with an arrow that went through their legs and the horse. modern test made with ancient bow demonstrated that at short range the arrow can go through more than 3 inches of oak and that at 200 meter it still go through an inch of the same wood. at 200 meter none of the chain mail were resisting to that and plate armor were pierced at 100 meters

Now the elite archer could hit a human target 12 time in a minute at 200 yards. Edward III Archery corps (6000 man) could throw 144 000 arrow in four minutes. Imagine the damage to the cavalery.

For sure if the Cavalry get to the archer their all dead, and that is why the infantery was there to cover them.