Defeat The Vile 5' Step

[werk]

Felnar, the arguement that I hear from you is that 5' step is unrealistic, and provides unfair protection from AoO for ranged attackers and casters. Since they can take the 5' and only draw normal attacks instead of normal attacks and AoO.

You are proposing that attackers who are being 'jipped of their AoO' by the 5' move can likewise move and still threaten the 5' move exploiter.

Is this correct/does it sum up the issue?

If so, when would it be appropriate (in your opinion) to make a 5' step?

Also, are you making a 5' instead of any other move actions that round? (just clarifying from the original thread's possible misunderstanding)

 

[Felnar]

Instead of knocking the mooks out that round, the Good Guy has to wait until next round. If he had not been destracted, the mooks would be painting the ground red, rather than beating on him. As the Good Guy(tm) waits (that is, uses his action to 5-foot step and fire at another), he has to absorb the mook's attacks.

does full_attack = guaranteed kill?
maybe, maybe not, depends on the situation.
if the situation does guarantee killing the mooks in one full-attack, then the situation could just as easily guarantee the Bad Guy(tm) killing you/your party/etc on it's next turn.

it's all situational dependent, and i take issue with the 5ft step allowing so much "unrealistic" versatility
- Felnar

 

[Felnar]

Felnar, the arguement that I hear from you is that 5' step is unrealistic, and provides unfair protection from AoO for ranged attackers and casters. Since they can take the 5' and only draw normal attacks instead of normal attacks and AoO.

You are proposing that attackers who are being 'jipped of their AoO' by the 5' move can likewise move and still threaten the 5' move exploiter.

Is this correct/does it sum up the issue?

yes, that sounds about right

If so, when would it be appropriate (in your opinion) to make a 5' step?

Also, are you making a 5' instead of any other move actions that round? (just clarifying from the original thread's possible misunderstanding)

When Appropriate?: whenever the DM allows it

Note: i see the 5ft step taken to "follow" someone's 5ft step as provoking normal movement AoO's (except from the person being followed, to prevent the "followed" person abusing a reachweapon). The "follow" 5ft step would most likely be an immediate action.

- Felnar

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Felnar..

..
werk: "If so, when would it be appropriate (in your opinion) to make a 5' step?"

Felnar: "When Appropriate?: whenever the DM allows it"

Allow me to rephrase for Werk..

Felnar, when would you, as a DM, allow a character to make a 5' step?

------------
Felnar: " i take issue with the 5ft step allowing so much "unrealistic" versatility"

Given a round based combat sequence that is rather "unrealistic", what is so "unrealistic" about the 5' step that it needs to be changed?

Felnar: "I'm in favor of "whenever someone you are meleeing takes a free 5ft step away from you, you have the option of following with a 5ft step""

I get the feeling that you dont like non-melee characters as this rule is slanted towards the melee focused types.

I think what is unrealistic to you is the concept of iteritive attacks occuring in one action. Its perferctly realistic for a archer to take a quick shuffle backwards while loading an arrow, then snap off a shot at the swordsman in front of him. Your arguments have centered on that archer getting a Full Attack with multiple arrows.

Perhaps you should pursue an atomized combat round, were each character intersperses thier actions amongst each other. This method would guarentee that spell slingers avoid melee since they could never complete a spell without being hit, that archers would suffer AoO virtually every round, and the the swordsman would be the ultimate character to play.

However, thats not the rules of DnD, where it is equally advantagous to play an archer as a swordsman. The difference being in tactical set up.

Realism in DnD combat is sometimes a good thing to look for. Other times it will ruin the game.

 

[werk]

When Appropriate?: whenever the DM allows it

Note: i see the 5ft step taken to "follow" someone's 5ft step as provoking normal movement AoO's (except from the person being followed, to prevent the "followed" person abusing a reachweapon). The "follow" 5ft step would most likely be an immediate action.

I'm much more in favor of 5' drawing AoO like normal movement than allowing 'move-with' actions.

I still like it RAW. (Oh baby I like it RAW!-ODB)

 

[Nail]

does full_attack = guaranteed kill?
maybe, maybe not, depends on the situation.

Exactly! Which is precisely why stepping away from your melee opponent to do a ranged attack against someone else is rarely a good idea!!! A full ranged attack against an opponent (from someone who specializes in melee) rarely does enough damage to be worth the cost.

Might it be a good idea occasionally? Sure....but in 5 years of playing (3.xe) with 4 different groups, I've yet to see it. I've also not seen a mage or archer using the 5-foot step round-after-round to "get away" from a melee-type. It's not a sustainable strategy.

You've yet to show any balance issue at all.

 

[Nail]

I think what is unrealistic to you is the concept of iteritive attacks occuring in one action. Its perferctly realistic for a archer to take a quick shuffle backwards while loading an arrow, then snap off a shot at the swordsman in front of him. Your arguments have centered on that archer getting a Full Attack with multiple arrows.

Colored the key bit.

 

[Felnar]

Allow me to rephrase for Werk..

Felnar, when would you, as a DM, allow a character to make a 5' step?

whenever it makes the game unfold as a better story,
or perhaps better explained as, i would disallow it when it wouldnt make sense for the situation

Given a round based combat sequence that is rather "unrealistic", what is so "unrealistic" about the 5' step that it needs to be changed?

we use the combat round because we arent computers, we need to simplify it down to a managable scale. if we were computers we'd run it all in real time.

I get the feeling that you dont like non-melee characters as this rule is slanted towards the melee focused types.

my typical character is primarily an archer, secondarily light fighter, with a few levels of divine spellcasting thrown in.
however, in my groups next campaign we have no heavy fighter, so i'm going to fill that role.

I think what is unrealistic to you is the concept of iteritive attacks occuring in one action. Its perferctly realistic for a archer to take a quick shuffle backwards while loading an arrow, then snap off a shot at the swordsman in front of him. Your arguments have centered on that archer getting a Full Attack with multiple arrows.

Perhaps you should pursue an atomized combat round, were each character intersperses thier actions amongst each other. This method would guarentee that spell slingers avoid melee since they could never complete a spell without being hit, that archers would suffer AoO virtually every round, and the the swordsman would be the ultimate character to play.

funny you should mention that. The next campaign's DM is going to try cutting the combat round into phases (sort of based off 2ndEd AD&D PO:Combat and Tactics). currently its just 2 phases. First phase you get either your move action, standard action, or half your full-round action. Second phase you get the rest of your full round action or whichever move/standard action you didnt use in phase one.

- Felnar

 

[Felnar]

Exactly! Which is precisely why stepping away from your melee opponent to do a ranged attack against someone else is rarely a good idea!!! A full ranged attack against an opponent (from someone who specializes in melee) rarely does enough damage to be worth the cost.

Might it be a good idea occasionally? Sure....but in 5 years of playing (3.xe) with 4 different groups, I've yet to see it. I've also not seen a mage or archer using the 5-foot step round-after-round to "get away" from a melee-type. It's not a sustainable strategy.

You've yet to show any balance issue at all.

how about greatsword melee fighter VS reach-weapon melee fighter
assume the greatsword represent the "base two-handed melee weapon", other two-handed weapons are different in that they have advantages and disadvantages compared to the "based weapon".

reach-weapon advantages: you threaten squares further away than right next to you (& if someone wants to engage you with a longsword, you get the first attack as an AoO when they move in)
reach-weapon disadvantages: you dont threaten squares right next to you (once someone gets in past the point of your weapon, you dont threaten them anymore) and a slightly lower damage (2d6 vs 2d4)

but, with the 5ft step, you remove the disadvantage, because the other fighter is never "inside your reach" when you go to make your attack. You retain the advantage of guaranteed first attack.

isnt this a balance issue?
- Felnar

 

[Testament]

how about greatsword melee fighter VS reach-weapon melee fighter
assume the greatsword represent the "base two-handed melee weapon", other two-handed weapons are different in that they have advantages and disadvantages compared to the "based weapon".

reach-weapon advantages: you threaten squares further away than right next to you (& if someone wants to engage you with a longsword, you get the first attack as an AoO when they move in)
reach-weapon disadvantages: you dont threaten squares right next to you (once someone gets in past the point of your weapon, you dont threaten them anymore) and a slightly lower damage (2d6 vs 2d4)

but, with the 5ft step, you remove the disadvantage, because the other fighter is never "inside your reach" when you go to make your attack. You retain the advantage of guaranteed first attack.

isnt this a balance issue?
- Felnar

Oops, there's a wall behind me. Or maybe we're in difficult terrain and I can't make the 5 ft step. I'm infinitely more vulnerable to sundering, or Warp Wood. Those dungeon corridors become a real PITA for the reach monkey too. Corners can really ruin a reachers day. And I have an inferior critical and damage dice. Heavier weapon too.

Honestly, have you thought about this, or are you a student at the Nisarg school of Rant? The arcane spellcaster who has to start 5 ft stepping to cast safely is ALREADY DEAD, since it means he's been drawn into the combat, and now the enemy fighter can just 5 ft step and full attack him. Oops. Same for the archer, his lovely bow's about to get sundered.

And as for your thrown weapons argument, I have 3 things to say.
1. GOOD! Every fighter should pack some alternate weaponry, and a pack of javelins is a good choice for the strength monkey.
2. Its not overpowering, since the damage from a storm of javelins is going to be inferior to the APAATT delivery.
3. How much are you willing to spend getting these items magiced up? DR can be a REAL PITA for a thrower.