Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ZenFox42" data-source="post: 6142515" data-attributes="member: 6746758">Hi!I am new to this board and posting in forums in general, and will be contributing various  class builds and house-rules I've experimented with and their results in the future, but  for now I have a question.  I first posted this issue in the "House Rules" forum because I considered it a house-rule, but I've seen threads on getting rid of AoO's and changing other things about the system on this forum, and it seems to get more action.  Please forgive a newbie if this is inappropriate.This is a summary from the other thread (I can't include links yet) :Just so you know, I've been playing and DM'ing RPG's for several decades.Several years ago I played for some time in 3.5, and learned all about the AoO rules.Now I'm a DM in a group with 3 players who are long-time RPGer's, but  *brand new* to "D&D" (3.5/d20/Pathfinder, and we're using Pathfinder, FWIW). The 4th player has been doing "D&D" for maybe a decade, and has the AoO rules down cold.  None  of them are power-gamers, thankfully!I have always felt that the AoO rules turned a fun role-playing game  into a game of tactics, and the players new to D&D were having a particularly hard  time with movement, which slowed things way down.So I implemented this simple house rule : moving between empty or friendly squares does not provoke any AoO's.  All  other actions that normally provoke AoO's (casting, standing, etc.)  still do, and the players can handle that just fine.  Moving thru an enemy's square is still handled as normal.   This has sped-up melee quite a bit, which is what I hoped for.  Most of the players (all but one, really) could care less about tactics, and just want to run around and kill things.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  This rule allows them to not have to spend a lot of time thinking about where to move and how to move.Now (from advice in the first thread) I can see where this rule gives certain advantages to one "class" over the other :1. A spellcaster with fighter-types right next to him can often (but not always)  simply walk away far enough to cast a spell without provoking an AoO.   The advantage goes to the spellcasters (as happened in the last game, and prompted this discussion amongst our group).2.  A spellcaster is behind a row of fighter-types protecting him.  But the  opponent's fighters can simply walk past the protectors and attack the  spellcaster.  The advantage goes to the fighter-types.3.  Many spellcasters stay away from the face-to-face fighting because their  spells have range, so often AoO's aren't even an issue for them.  And  if the field isn't crowded, they can take a 5-foot step back and still  cast without provoking AoO's.  But with this rule, the fighter-types who  are in the battle area are now free to move thru it to attack  whatever they want without worrying about AoO's.  The advantage goes to  the fighters.So far I haven't really seen any major imbalances with the rule.  And anything that applies to the PC's also applies to the bad guys, so that's not an issue.Yes, I know the rule nerfs reach weapons, Combat Reflexes, and a couple other feats, but I'm ok with that (I mean, really, a 3rd level hi-DEX fighter in a crowded battle with a glaive getting up to 5 attacks in one round all at full BAB? - let's talk about the imbalance of that! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ).  And one DM said it would have made a favorite monster useless, and one player said it would make a favorite build useless, but I'm not concerned with single cases.Here's the new question/problem : Now that we've reached 6th level, the one player who hates the rule has pointed out that with it, a spellcaster can move more than 5' away from a fighter to  cast, but then the fighter can't take a full attack because they have to move  more than 5' to catch up.  While a caster's spells' damage-dealing increases with  level (typically Nd6 when they're level N), a fighter's damage-dealing increases by being able to  get in extra hits.  So this rule basically "halves" the amount of damage melee  fighters can do (in general, not just to spellcasters, since any opponent can move more than 5' away).  I think that's significant.I've been considering this option : allow fighters with BAB>5 to take a full attack as a standard action.  That way they can take a move action to catch up to their opponent, and still get in their full hits.  Problem is, having only used "D&D" for a couple of years (and never DM'd in it at high levels), I can't predict what other ramifications this rule might have.So my questions are :1.  Would being able to take a full attack as a standard action seriously imbalance anything else?  And please explain why.2.  What other advice/suggestions/rules does anyone have for restoring the fighter's balance?  3.  Or can anyone argue that it isn't that significant a problem?Thanks!P.S. - I just thought of this while typing : what about a rule that says if a spellcaster would provoke an AoO by casting, they can only move 5', not take a Move action?  Totally artificial, but it might solve the problem.  This would only apply when they want to cast as part of their action that round.  Maybe I could justify it by saying that casting takes slightly more than a Standard action, so you can't also take a Move action, just a 5' step.  But unlike a full-round spell, the spell still goes off at the end of their action.  ...  Drat, that wouldn't affect any other classes when they move more than 5' away from the full-attack fighter.  Nevermind.</blockquote>

Verification