Wizard in Melee, step back and shoot? and staff Q.

[Wellby]

Feel the need to check on something that I think is very straightforwardly allowed in 3.5, but my 8 yr old says just doesn't make sense.

Barbarian (with normal 5 ft reach) in melee with a wizard. Wizard's turn. 5 ft step back and away from barbarian, so no AoO, and then whispers a few words and fires a lightning bolt at the barbarian, again, no AoO as not in reach of barbarian. Is this legal? I can see why this annoys my son, so is he onto something I've missed?

Also: in Red Hand of Doom, there is a Staff of Stormclouds that let's the user cast, among other things, Call Lightning at the 10th level, a rather powerful spell during a storm, with 10 straight rounds of 3d10 electric damage!

Q: Can anyone use a staff if they know the activation word? In other words, can the same Barbarian hold forward the Staff, say the right word, then blast a Druidic spell (call lightning) at his foes, without knowing anything about spells, let alone Druid spells?

thanks!
Wellby

PS: spent the last 6 months with 4th edition. 3.5 campaign was just too good I guess, so we've packed up the 4th books for a good while...

 

[frankthedm]

I pretty much agree with your son. 5' adjustment was an artificial construct to let engaged Casters and Archers to safely fire their attacks against medium foes [or those otherwise without reach]. I don't like it much, but removing it will change things dramatically.

To use a staff, you need the spell on your class list.

 

[Wellby]

thanks for that!

we knew there had been a good reason 6 months ago that we had called a low level druid out of retirement to use the staff, and thought it was for such a reason, but in scouring the tomes last night, could not find that rule. thanks again!

 

[Abciximab]

Yeah, there are ways to still get the attack and attempt to ruin the spell, readied actions (you can take a 5' step as part of a readied action if you didn't move that round) reach weapons (Spiked chain, Pole arm W/ Shorthaft feat) or a readied action with a ranged weapon. If you have no allies and/or you're in a wide open space it gets harder to set up attacks but you can do it. There is also a mage slayer feat path that might be good for a barbarian.

(I don't have my books with me so I can't quote books/pages, sorry)

Oh - I forgot the most helpful, ready to charge when they start to cast.

 

[pawsplay]

Essentially, the caster can take an AoO, cast defensively, or maneuever away. What they give up is the opportunity to withdraw at their full movement rate.

The barbarian can ready an action to move adjacent to the spellcaster as soon as he starts casting. If the caster has not already declared they are casting defensively, they get whacked and potentially interrupted.

The staff rule is described under spell trigger items.

 

[Pinotage]

The effectiveness of this tactic for the wizard is also rather questionable and will depend on level. The barbarian is likely to bring down the wizard fairly quickly with a few powerful raging strikes, and can fairly easily absorb most of the damage that the wizards slings at him. Also, tactics such as grappling are extremely useful against wizards. Have the barbarian ready an action to grapple, get the hold, and then just don't let the weak wizard escape.

Pinotage

 

[Kask]

I can see why this annoys my son, so is he onto something I've missed?

Yes, he is very logical. More so than the game designers. I eliminated this early on. Although you need "turns" to run a combat system, actions are supposed to be simultaneous. I try to run it that was as much as possible, so as to not have ridiculous scenarios crop up in combat.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I pretty much agree with your son. 5' adjustment was an artificial construct to let engaged Casters and Archers to safely fire their attacks against medium foes [or those otherwise without reach].

You mean kinda like how "realisticly" the first person to get struck, by spell, arrow, or sword, would be the one to die, if not from the first hit, then incapacitated enough by it to be felled by follow up attacks? So said barbarian, unless he actually snuck up on the wizard, would be dead from 300 paces away in any typical scenario?








For the OP: If it makes you feel any better, the rules don't consider not being able to fire in melee the "trade-off" for letting an enemy close. THe rules are structured such that a melee attacker has a hard time full attacking (generally must start his turn w/in 5 ft of the foe), whilst an archer can full attack almost any given round (and with rapid shot, can from as early as level 1). So the "downside" to fighting in melee for an archer is giving your enemy your main advantage -- the full attack action. And melee attacks tend to do more damage than archer fire.

 

[Kask]

You mean kinda like how "realisticly" the first person to get struck, by spell, arrow, or

No, I use HP & spells. I just don't do freeze frame combat, a very stupid concept from 3.x.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

No, I use HP & spells. I just don't do freeze frame combat, a very stupid concept from 3.x.

I don't understand how not using freeze-frame combat prevents one person from being struck first*, especially when one guy has a bow and the other guy has a sword and a hundred feet of ground to cover to get to the archer, and both are aware of each other.


*Time of course being an artifical construct and relative to each of our own frames of reference, etc, etc... If this theoretical duel happened close enough to a massive body (tarrasque?) with enough gravity to bend time around it, I suppose the results could be different.


Back to OP, I think this cna jsut be chalked up to the heroic fantasy aspect of D&D. The same heroic fantasy that says "it's a buzzkill to be cut down from afar by one attack" that allows your son the ability to actually close with the wizard/archer also says "it's a buzzkill if the wizard/archer doesn't have a fighting chance once the enemy does close with him." I think eating a barbarian's full attack is punishment enough, YMMV, I guess...