Defeat The Vile 5' Step

[Coredump]

apparently my point is missed yet again...

i feel it is wrong, that in the midst of melee combat, one combatent can take a 5ft step back and throw a full attack of throw weapons, and be left standing with their sword threatening their 5ft reach. All while the other combatent stands and watches (paralyzed by turn based combat).
i am not saying its better to throw stuff at your melee opponent.
i am not saying that you should step back and throw spears every round

i am saying that the written rules (how everyone else seems to like them), allow for the large tactical advantage of ranged attacks, without the downside of ranged attacks.
i see this as abusive and oh so easy to prevent, as several people on the first page suggested.

Actually, it is very hard to prevent, but lets talk about your premises.

You state that it gives the fighter the 'advantage' of ranged attacks. That is true.

But you state that it doesn't give the 'disadvantages' or ranged attack. But it seems the *only* thing you count as a disadvantage is suffering AoO's. And that seems a bit short sighted.

Grok the fighter has a +3 greatsword, he has a bunch of feats for his greatsword, and gets 1.5 Str damage. Now, he has the *option* of taking a 5' step and throwing weapons.

He gets the *advantage* of trying to hit someone 50 feet away.

He gets the *disadvantage* of not being able to use a magical weapon.
The disadvantage or not being able to use all the same feats.
The disadvantage of using a weapon that does less damage.
The disadvantage of having a lower chance to hit. (without precise shot, likely far lower)
The disadvantage of not being able to stand his ground in order to get the extra range.
The disadvantage of trying to convince the DM that it makes sense that he is carrying a dozen 6' spears.


Is it better to have that option? Hell yeah. It is nice to have lots of options. But they are not unbalanced if you have to trade something for the advantage. In this case, Grok could hit the guy in front of him for 50 damage. Or throw things at the other guy for 21 points of damage. That is the trade-off. That is the balance. You trade effectiveness for versatility.

 

[Nail]

full iterative thrown attacks can often be more damaging than a move/single attack.

Sure. ...and that has exactly nothing to do with a 5-foot step. Nothing.

a 5ft step and quickdraw lets you be ranged when you want, and melee when you want.

Here's where your straw-man arguement falls apart.

If we postulate two builds:

• A Ftr with thrown weapons, vs.
• a Ftr with a greatsword

...and compare the damage of the two given full round attacks, the greatsword guy wins all the time. You argue that the 5-foot step allows the thrown weapon guy to step back and throw - which he can - but then the greatsword weilding guy can step up and full attack too. IOW: Once in melee range, the thrown guy will lose, 5-step or no.



Moreover, as has been mentioned countless times, thrown weapon styles have major downsides. They are not uber......and really, the smack-down threads prove that time and again (Hulking Hurler and the meteorite of DOOM aside ).

 

[werk]

I'm not saying readying is never a good idea....it just is usually not good.

Thanks.

I think my mindset is stuck at low-level (my current campaign hasn't even hit second level yet). Where the ready is a much more feasible trade for full round.

 

[Nail]

I think my mindset is stuck at low-level (my current campaign hasn't even hit second level yet). Where the ready is a much more feasible trade for full round.

True enough!

But at low level (1 thru 5, say?), that mage can be felled with one solid hit. He's only got 19 hp at level 5. Power Attack with a Greatsword!

(At 5th level, assuming a well-built Ftr, that's probably 2d6 + 6(Str 18) +1(magic) +10(PA for 5).... 24 hp of damage! If he's able to charge the wizard, his attack roll might be +5 BAB +1 (Weap Focus) +1(magic) +4 (Str) + 2(charge) -5 (PA for 5) .....+8. That sounds like a 50/50 chance of hitting a buffed Wiz of that level. ....sorry 'bout the numbers, couldn't help it. )

 

[Coredump]

Sure. ...and that has exactly nothing to do with a 5-foot step. Nothing.

Here's where your straw-man arguement falls apart.

If we postulate two builds:

• A Ftr with thrown weapons, vs.
• a Ftr with a greatsword

But that is not his point. He is trying to compare
Ftr with only greatsword
Ftr with greatsword, that can also step back and throw spears.

What he is missing is the tradeoff. you can attack nearby, and do a lot of damage, or you can attack at a distance, for less damage, less chance to hit, etc.

 

[werk]

True enough! But at low level (1 thru 5, say?), that mage can be felled with one solid hit. He's only got 19 hp at level 5. Power Attack with a Greatsword!
(mathmathmath)

That's another part of it, I agree totally from a mechanical perspective.

Sounds like you don't have a lot of dwarven fighter sorcerers fighting the party...


Anyway, did we decide the reason that this thread was started was becuase they were using 5' step incorrectly?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Anyway, did we decide the reason that this thread was started was becuase they were using 5' step incorrectly?

Hmm I think we did, but he never acknowleged it exactly. And those sentence-paragraphs are hard to interpriet.

 

[Felnar]

But that is not his point. He is trying to compare
Ftr with only greatsword
Ftr with greatsword, that can also step back and throw spears.

What he is missing is the tradeoff. you can attack nearby, and do a lot of damage, or you can attack at a distance, for less damage, less chance to hit, etc.

Hooray !
someone actually understands !

the only trade-off is having to take QuickDraw,
(which i dont see as much of a trade-off since its not a ranged only feat)

sure, you can always full-attack the guy next to you,
but there can, and should, be times when its better to
full-attack the guy at the other end of the room.

thank you Coredump for reading what i was saying,
instead of just seeing "throwing > melee"

- Felnar

 

[apesamongus]

Hooray !
someone actually understands !

the only trade-off is having to take QuickDraw,
(which i dont see as much of a trade-off since its not a ranged only feat)

sure, you can always full-attack the guy next to you,
but there can, and should, be times when its better to
full-attack the guy at the other end of the room.

thank you Coredump for reading what i was saying,
instead of just seeing "throwing > melee"

Well, maybe everyone else was assuming you had a relevant point. If that is all you are saying then, it can be simplified to "a fighter should also have a ranged weapon", to which we all can reply "duh". Yes, it's beneficial for a fighter to be able to make ranged attacks. Why shouldn't it be? Why should we want to limit his options in that regard (by trying to take away his AoO-free FAA)? To state it bluntly, in the context of this discussion, what is your point?

 

[Felnar]

Well, maybe everyone else was assuming you had a relevant point. If that is all you are saying then, it can be simplified to "a fighter should also have a ranged weapon", to which we all can reply "duh". Yes, it's beneficial for a fighter to be able to make ranged attacks. Why shouldn't it be? Why should we want to limit his options in that regard (by trying to take away his AoO-free FAA)? To state it bluntly, in the context of this discussion, what is your point?

yet again...
ranged combat has benefits
the benefits of ranged/thrown attacks shouldn't be allowed, while effectivly engaged "in melee combat", WITHOUT some sort of penalty (ie. AoO or disembowelment by the guy you've stopped defending yourself against)

i say effectivly because i dont think of people as stone statues when its not "their turn"

i dont think i can say it any more simply...
but i'm sure someone will make me try...
- Felnar