Post/Author/DateTime	Post
jidar 06-03-06, 01:37 AM	Hi, I'm a returning player. I used to play 2nd Ed. for years in highschool and into college, but like most I got into the real world and got married, kids, job etc.. etc.. So now it's been about 10 years since my last game and I'm about to get back into it. I ran into an old friend of mine who hadn't really stopped playing and had him DM a game of 3.5 for me. One of the things I noticed in the game was a rule that allowed him to make a 5 foot step and then use his bow against a monster who is brandishing a melee weapon without the normal penalty for shooting in melee and without giving an attack of opportunity. I didn't like that at all, it seemed a bit ridiculous to me that you can continue to use your range in that way just by stepping back and firing. It's akin to just using a range weapon as a melee one, what gives? Are we misinterpretting the rule? Do people normally play it like that or use house rules or what? I know I can just do it my own way, that's the nice thing about D&D, but I figured I'd ask here first and see what people thought about that.
clarkvalentine 06-03-06, 01:44 AM	That's 100% legal, yes. I can understand the objection to it, but a clever opponent can get around it. One idea is that the melee attacker may attempt to sunder the archer's bow (attack the bow rather than the archer and break it). Another idea is that the melee combatant (he may need some help for this one) could try to "herd" the archer into a corner so he can't back up and keep shooting.
Hakar Maloye 06-03-06, 01:46 AM	Using a reach weapon is also a good idea. An archer trying this against someone wielding a halberd is in trouble.
jidar 06-03-06, 02:02 AM	Using a reach weapon is also a good idea. An archer trying this against someone wielding a halberd is in trouble. I've played precisely 1 3.5 session, and my books just got here the other day so please forgive my ignorance, but how pricesly does the reach weapon affect the situation?
Tempest Stormwind 06-03-06, 02:09 AM	I've played precisely 1 3.5 session, and my books just got here the other day so please forgive my ignorance, but how pricesly does the reach weapon affect the situation? Unless the reach weapon's a spiked chain or the character using it has some close-range attack (natural weapons, say), it doesn't, but in either of these cases you can make sure that the squares you threaten are the only ones the archer can reach in 5'. (EDIT: Monsters with natural reach, such as ogres, are more lethal here than normal reach weaponry. Congrats, you're now 10' away from the ogre... who can still whallop you with that tree.) Alternately -- and this is the smart thing to do -- rather than blindly swinging away (which was pretty much all you could do in earlier editions), consider readying an action. Ready a trip or sunder attack against him on the trigger "If he steps away from me". Note how readied actions are dealt with BEFORE the trigger is carried out. (This readied action could even be readying a 5' step of your own to bring yourself right against him, thus forcing him to move further away from you (giving up the full attack) or suffer attacks of opportunity.) For that matter, during your turn, you could still 5' step to him and hit him with a full attack just as he's hitting you with a full attack. But, since you're a melee weapon user, you have options he doesn't -- such as tripping him, disarming him, sundering the weapon, or, a good one here, grappling him (similar to wrestling in 2e, only less byzantine. Still confusing, but at least there's some reason to it). If a 5' step is throwing you off, you aren't using your options to the best of your ability. Think tactically and your options expand dramatically. (Note how unlike earlier editions, fighters aren't just tanks who deal damage -- in fact, they don't do the damage role very well at all when compared to the rest of the party, except at very low levels (although the PHB2 seems to be changing this). Their advantage -- lots of feats, which means lots of complicated combat maneuvers -- lends themselves more easily to combat tricks than simply swinging an axe everywhere. Learn to build on *this* strength and your fighters will be amazingly useful into higher levels... at least, compared to other fighters.)
Hakar Maloye 06-04-06, 01:04 AM	I've played precisely 1 3.5 session, and my books just got here the other day so please forgive my ignorance, but how pricesly does the reach weapon affect the situation? Player's Handbook 3.5, page 137 "Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Casting a spell and attacking with a ranged weapon, for example, are distracting actions. Table 8-2: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity." Someone with a reach weapon threatens all squares withing 10 feet, so while stepping 5' away from him won't provoke an AoO, subsequently firing a bow from 10' away will.
Kursk 06-04-06, 01:20 AM	One of the things I noticed in the game was a rule that allowed him to make a 5 foot step and then use his bow against a monster who is brandishing a melee weapon without the normal penalty for shooting in melee and without giving an attack of opportunity. I didn't like that at all, it seemed a bit ridiculous to me that you can continue to use your range in that way just by stepping back and firing. It's akin to just using a range weapon as a melee one, what gives? Are we misinterpretting the rule? Do people normally play it like that or use house rules or what? Yes, it is stupid and unrealistic. I house ruled it out immediately. Suggest you do the same..
Nom 06-04-06, 10:49 AM	Depending on the weapon, it's not even that "unrealistic". Example: a guy is armed with a bunch of throwing daggers, and a sword-wielding opponent approaches. It's not unreasonable to imagine the guy with the daggers keeping ducking and dodging back to open the range while pegging daggers at his opponent. With a little creative thinking, you could even apply the same logic to most bows. The one 5 ft. step followed by multiple shots is due to the turn based abstraction. It could as easily represent multiple short steps as the two opponents dance around each other, the one trying to get a decent swing and the other trying to keep away. One thing in favour of this model is that the way to stop in-game is pretty much the same as you'd try in "real life". Back the ranged guy against an obstruction or bring in an ally to surround him. Or use your initial attack to put him on the ground rather than trying to do injury. Ranged attackers are particularly vulnerable to being tripped - they don't get an AoO (since they don't threaten) and typically can't use their weapon once prone (only crossbows and shuriken can be used while prone). Not to mention the usual problems of -4 AC vs melee and provoking an AoO when they stand. Alternatively, just sunder or disarm the bow.
Fargren 06-04-06, 11:53 AM	It's really easy to move 5 feet, and it's really hard to hit somone farther tahn 5 feet away from you. I consider totally realistic. And suder and reach still screw up archers. Also, note that bows deal really small damage if you compare them with any other two-handed weapon.
Zherog 06-04-06, 12:33 PM	Player's Handbook 3.5, page 137 "Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Casting a spell and attacking with a ranged weapon, for example, are distracting actions. Table 8-2: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity." Someone with a reach weapon threatens all squares withing 10 feet, so while stepping 5' away from him won't provoke an AoO, subsequently firing a bow from 10' away will. Unless the creature has a spiked chain, or some other method of threatening such as a spiked guantlet or a natural weapon, a reach weapon threatens all squares 10' away but not those 5' away. Therefore, the creature with reach isn't going to close to 5' away - it's going to close to 10' away. Therefore, the archer's 5' step (either away or towards the monster, both have the same effect) is going to take the archer out of the squares the reach creature threatens.
Xykon 06-04-06, 09:55 PM	jidar, With the right feats yes the archer can do that. A way to prevent this is to flank the archer if possible, that way, he can't move back and every shot he makes will invoke "attacks of opportunity". If you think thats bad, it gets worse. Ask the archer guy if he has any form of shield and if he is as familiar with the rules as most people in this board are, he will probably have a buckler which gives him AC bonus *EVEN* when weilding a bow -- all this without penalty to his archery. Imagine an archer being able to block enemy melee with his shield while attacking. D&D combat system is a very abstract system and does lack in the "realism" department. However it is made with the intention to be quick, simple (majority at least) and unobtrusive.
Zherog 06-04-06, 10:36 PM	jidar, With the right feats yes the archer can do that. Actually, the archer doesn't need any feats to accomplish that. The 5' step is available to even a 1st level commoner. :)
Inigo Carmine 06-04-06, 11:27 PM	If you think thats bad, it gets worse. Ask the archer guy if he has any form of shield and if he is as familiar with the rules as most people in this board are, he will probably have a buckler which gives him AC bonus *EVEN* when weilding a bow -- all this without penalty to his archery. Imagine an archer being able to block enemy melee with his shield while attacking. Actually, no. From the SRD Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round. Jidar, the situation you describe is only unrealistic if you imagine combat unfolds like this: Person A stands stock still for 6 seconds while person B unleashes a series of attacks on him. Then person B freezes in place while Person A makes multiple attacks against person B. combat in D&D is, as everyone has said, an abstraction. it is impossible for everyone to go at the same time, and so you must set aside a certain amount of in game time where people do their stuff, and take it in some kind of order. In D&D, that time is 6 seconds worth of activity and that order is initiative. The actions themselves are supposed to be occuring simultaneously, but the turn-based abstraction does kind of mess with that a little bit, most notably when it comes to the relative position of people involved. The only real way to solve this is to break it down into smaller chunks, like half seconds, but then carrying the game out becomes rediculously slow. What you have to imagine in your mind, is more the archer backpedalling away loosing shafts as he goes, instead of step back loose, loose, loose; step back, etc. Mechanically, the meleer standing there unable to persue the archer while he steps backwards 5 ft and looses 3 arrows is a bit strange, but keep in mind that it was also odd when the archer stood there and didn't put 3 shafts into the meleer when he charged him from 80ft away. Consider the meleer's inability to to stop this payback for the archer being denied the opportunity to prevent this situation from occuring in the first place. And then, there is one other thing to keep in mind: Range is not as powerful in D&D as it is in real life. The reason: HP. Range is devastating in real life, because it allows you to kill your melee opponent before he ever gets close enough to hit you in the first place. 1 good arrow should be enough to take the meleer out of the fight. Instead, in D&D he loses a few HP and keeps on coming. Now the archer is in melee, something that realistically should never have occured to begin with (the archer surviving the meleer's charge is also unrealistic, but it he never should have gotten close enough to begin with). We now have a disproportionately large amount of time spent "in melee" in D&D than we would have realistically had. In order to balance this situation, you give the archer some way to continue to be effective when an enemy has closed, because the enemy never should have closed to begin with. And even on top of all this, remember 2 things: 1) There are plenty of ways to foil the archer's 5-ft step game. Disarming is my favorite, but tripping, sundering, grappling, flanking and cornering are also good. 2) Even if you are forced to play the game, the meleer should be doing a little to a lot more damage than the archer, and probably has better AC as well. The archer is still very much disadvantaged.
Weaponbreaker 06-05-06, 01:10 AM	Yes, it is stupid and unrealistic. I house ruled it out immediately. Suggest you do the same.. I think those that oppose the 5 foot step have not read it and do not understand its intent. Many others have posted that same thought but let me elaborate. For those with martial arts or any hand to hand training it is very easy to 'break distance' with out any negative penalty. However when you attempt to 'move to a safe distance' you will usually get clipped or worse during this attempt. The 5 foot rule actually adds a sense of realism to the combat system rather than the opposite. For those that have house rulled out the free five have you also ruled out the full withraw? and besides how many monsters have reach? 65-75% of them and a realatively challenging moster will close to 'base to base' contact to avoid the "I'll 5foot away and fire" situation. This rule looks, at first, to be broken but I assure you once it has been played with for a while your recuuring villains will expose and abuse this as often if not more often than the players. This is a good rule that has limitations and usability, that does not break the game in any spectacular ways.
X-Codes 06-05-06, 01:25 AM	The thing I hate most about the 5' step was how it was automatic in Neverwinter Nights. Totally gimped the Dwarven Defender in that game because you couldn't actually stand still... Anyway, if a 5' step is giving you grief you need to double-check your tactics. It's all been said before in this thread. If you're mounted, you can also let the archer build a little distance and then charge and trample him, getting one big shot in with your lance, your warhorse getting a hoof attack in, and knocking him prone all in one fell swoop.
Hakar Maloye 06-05-06, 01:47 AM	Unless the creature has a spiked chain, or some other method of threatening such as a spiked guantlet or a natural weapon, a reach weapon threatens all squares 10' away but not those 5' away. Therefore, the creature with reach isn't going to close to 5' away - it's going to close to 10' away. Therefore, the archer's 5' step (either away or towards the monster, both have the same effect) is going to take the archer out of the squares the reach creature threatens. I stand corrected. Or am I taking a 5'-step corrected? :confused:
BronzeHand 06-19-06, 09:03 AM	Many situations in the game get into a "realistic" versus "by the rules" discussion. Realistically, the archer would use the bow only while the target was at long range, retreating with each round to keep the target at a long range. Once the enemy gets within melee range, the archer would drop the bow and draw his reserve melee weapon. Fighting close quarters with a bow is stupid. However, in a game of fantasy and heroism, it does paint a pretty picture to see a skilled and dexterous archer dancing around in the midst of a raging melee battle, striking the enemy down just as they are about to cleave the archer. The actions themselves are supposed to be occuring simultaneously... the archer backpedalling away loosing shafts as he goes... Again, realistically, a melee is a constantly changing and moving battle. Fighters don’t typically just stand around waiting for their opponent to move before they make an attack. The archer and a swordsman would be taking their actions almost at the same time. Initiative is representing that one will have just a slight lead or advantage in when the strike is scored. Likewise, the six second round is not just a movement and a single hit. The combatants are maneuvering and making multiple attempts to try to score a hit. The round would conceivable play out this way: Archer with initiative begins stepping backwards, keeping an eye on the swordsman, and begins notching an arrow. The swordsman makes a step and thrust attack, which the archers dodges. Still stepping backwards, the archer draws the bow, looking for a target on the swordsman. The swordsman still stepping forward, recovering from the thrust, raises his shield in an effort to block any possible arrow shot. Archer looses arrow at point blank range (attack role is made). Having decided to only make a 5’ foot step, the archer only makes one more small step backwards as he prepares to dodge the swordsman’s attacks. The swordsman continues making swipes and thrusts to try and land a blow on the archer (his attack role is made). He can then complete his turn by maneuvering or possibly making a second attack if he has the skill to do so. Battling the 5’ Step If you really don’t like an archer taking advantage of the five foot step and want to do something about it, one of the best methods I’ve seen is to have the opponent double-team the archer. One opponent will have a normal 5’ reach (such as a sword and shield) and the other will have a 10’ reach (pole arm). In this way, the archer can’t make a 5’ step to avoid an AoO and still make an attack without then incurring an AoO.
Sulaco 06-19-06, 11:33 AM	Yes, it is stupid and unrealistic. I house ruled it out immediately. Suggest you do the same.. And I suggest you ignore that advice completely. House ruling the game right off the bat before you've had any real experience with it is a very bad idea.
wrecan 06-19-06, 12:05 PM	Too many foes don't take use of the ready action. If you're fighting an archer in close melee combat and you don't have a reach weapon (and you don't think you're particularly good at sundering), ready an action to follow the archer's five-foot step with one of your own (accompanied by a melee attack). It keeps the archer from using his ranged weapon without provoking AoO, it keeps you in melee range. You might lose a full attack, but you'll probably get an AoO. The smart archer will quickly discard his bow in close combat. Too many NPCs and players are wedded to preserving that great initiative roll. Once initiative has been determined, a good bet is almost always dropping down to go just before your foe, if you can.
danielinthewolvesden 06-19-06, 12:36 PM	And I suggest you ignore that advice completely. House ruling the game right off the bat before you've had any real experience with it is a very bad idea. Right. Most large Monster have Reach, which negates this tactic, and a Monster with natural weapns and reach threatens all squares in it's reach.. Other monsters can have Reach weapons (and they can have a reach weapon and spiked gauntlets or spiked armour and threaten both 5' and 10') or Sunder the bow. Besides, taking a 5' step and shootting allows the Monster to take a 5' step and a FAO. It's no big deal, really.
Arganis 06-19-06, 01:11 PM	ready an action to follow the archer's five-foot step with one of your own (accompanied by a melee attack). It keeps the archer from using his ranged weapon without provoking AoO, it keeps you in melee range. You might lose a full attack, but you'll probably get an AoO. This is not only correct, but it's a damn good call. As per the SRD: You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don’t otherwise move any distance during the round. Between this and charging, There's no reason why you couldn't stay toe-to-toe with the ranger and force him to provoke every round if he wants to attack you.
Kursk 06-25-06, 04:03 PM	And I suggest you ignore that advice completely. House ruling the game right off the bat before you've had any real experience with it is a very bad idea. The "experience" is that it is unrealistic. As far as game experience, I'd say that DM'ing for 27+ years gives me a decent insight into the game mechanics involved.
Steelborn86 06-25-06, 06:09 PM	Using a reach weapon is also a good idea. An archer trying this against someone wielding a halberd is in trouble. Excellent option. However, I just recently found out myself that a halberd is not a reach weapon according to the PHB.
scott644 06-25-06, 09:43 PM	There's an even worse item if Races of the Wild is allowed; elvencrafted bows. Using them allows ranged attacks without provoking AoO's. Definately an item to be careful with.
Nom 06-25-06, 10:33 PM	The "experience" is that it is unrealistic. As far as game experience, I'd say that DM'ing for 27+ years gives me a decent insight into the game mechanics involved.You've DM-ed 3rd-ed for 27 years? Impressive. I've been playing board games for around 25 years. This doesn't incline me to immediately change key mechanics of a newly purchased game, until I've at least played it 2-3 times to get a feel for how it works in real play. See also the recent design and development article: "reads bad, plays good".
wrecan 06-26-06, 08:51 AM	I'd say that DM'ing for 27+ years gives me a decent insight into the game mechanics involved. And I'd say the fact that you missed the point that readying an action to interrupt the close-range archer totally eviscerates the need for a house rule demonstrates that your 27 years of experience doesn't mean you don't miss stuff. My merely 23 years of experience has taught me that it is impossible to learn the rules of a game as comple as 3.5 "immediately" with sufficient proficiency to know when house ruling seomthing in or out is a good or bad thing. Had I done so, I too might not have realized how easily the rules handle 5'-stepping archers. Nor would I ever in my nearly quarter century of experience had ever thought that "realism" has ever been a consideration in D&D combat.
Burgundy Lotus 06-26-06, 09:06 AM	And I'd say the fact that you missed the point that readying an action to interrupt the close-range archer totally eviscerates the need for a house rule demonstrates that your 27 years of experience doesn't mean you don't miss stuff. My merely 23 years of experience has taught me that it is impossible to learn the rules of a game as comple as 3.5 "immediately" with sufficient proficiency to know when house ruling seomthing in or out is a good or bad thing. Had I done so, I too might not have realized how easily the rules handle 5'-stepping archers. Nor would I ever in my nearly quarter century of experience had ever thought that "realism" has ever been a consideration in D&D combat. Yes I'd say that since he ruled it out immediately he never bothered to look and see if there were tactics around it. That strikes me as extremely lazy, not bothering to see how it interacts with other rules in the game shows that after 27+ years he's a sloppy DM, and thankfully not one I played with.
Leilond 06-26-06, 09:18 AM	The "experience" is that it is unrealistic. As far as game experience, I'd say that DM'ing for 27+ years gives me a decent insight into the game mechanics involved. It seems your 27+ years of DM'ing didn't teached you really much A REALLY experienced DM do not change any rules before looking in the core books to see if there are some way to make the things work, so that his "changes" do not overcome the whole balance In this case you can: 1) Prepared action: take a move action to go after the archer and do not permit him to use the bow freely 2) Disarm: hit the bow and disarm your opponent. Being equipped with a bow your opponent cannot deal any AoO 3) Sunder: break you opponent bow. This is the SIMPLIEST way to deal with it due to the very low HP of a bow. Being equipped with a bow, your opponent cannot perform any AoO and cannot sunder your weapon if you fail. With a good two handed weapon or a decent strenght bonus you can sunder a bow with a single hit 4) Trip: kicking your opponent to the ground and he won't be able to use a bow (as the PHB report). This is better done if you have "improved trip" and you're significant stronger than the opponent As a REALLY experienced DM can demostrate, yuo really do not need to house rule it and you can use the built in rules of this game for this situation that is perfectly balanced. The ranger of my group learned it really quickly, when that two handed sword orcs fighters sundered his 700 gold cost perfect composite long bow with strenght bonus +2 in a single shot! Now he NEVER use the 5' step near a possible sunder
Kursk 06-27-06, 10:07 AM	It seems your 27+ years of DM'ing didn't teached you really much A REALLY experienced DM do not change any rules before looking in the core books to see if there are some way to make the things work, so that his "changes" do not overcome the whole balance In this case you can: I have found it to be much simpler to get rid of rules that make no sense. THAT is the easiest way to handle. I don't really care if it is a CORE rule. A bad rule is a bad rule.
Cifer 06-27-06, 11:27 AM	I have found it to be much simpler to get rid of rules that make no sense. Again, what is the nonsensical part of the rule? It describes that someone can carefully move five feet (basically about two steps) in one direction. Another rule describes how someone can follow him so that an archer still cannot use this in a way that allows him to be effective in melee unless he has friends backing him up.
SeraphimDominion 06-27-06, 11:30 AM	Further, removing the 5-foot step makes archers almost useless, and spellcasters also take a hit in power.
olshanski_home 06-27-06, 12:12 PM	Yes, it is stupid and unrealistic. I house ruled it out immediately. Suggest you do the same..This is one rule I would not dream of getting rid of. At very low levels, 1-5, this might seem like an exploit. At levels 6 and higher, enemies are going to have a "full attack" sequence available, and you want to avoid that at all costs if you are an archer or wizard. Taking a 5' step leaves you vulnerable to a full attack. If you take only a 5' step, that carrion crawler is going to unload 9 attacks on you on the next round. Beyond just sundering and disarming (both good suggestions), a person with a bow is subject to getting bull-rushed, grappled, or overrun... he cannot make an AoO with a bow, so he is pretty vulnerable to a bunch of specialized attacks.
danielinthewolvesden 06-27-06, 01:28 PM	The "experience" is that it is unrealistic. As far as game experience, I'd say that DM'ing for 27+ years gives me a decent insight into the game mechanics involved. I have been DMing since 1972, that's 34 years. :P And, the rule works, and is not unrealistic.
wrecan 06-27-06, 01:55 PM	I have found it to be much simpler to get rid of rules that make no sense. Except, of course, lots of people (some with as much or more experience DMing than you) have pointed out why the rule is sensible, to which you are either unable to, or have chosen not to, respond.
olshanski_home 06-27-06, 03:56 PM	I have been DMing since 1972, that's 34 years. :P And, the rule works, and is not unrealistic. WTF. D&D was not created until 1974, and then it wasn't widely available. I started DMing in 1976. I had to mail order my gaming supplies (like dice) from the Source in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. Do you perhaps mean 1982?
Alynn 06-28-06, 03:22 AM	Five foot steps aren't overpowered at all, for one simple reason all you have to do is 5 foot step into the archer and are able to unload on him. Or 5 foot step in, attack, and drink a potion of (can't think of it, the shield spell that deflects arrows). The five foot step is there because the grid is set in 5 foot squares, had they decided that a 3'X3' square was enough, it would have been called a 3 foot step. It's the smallest amount of movement you can make on the grid. What this represents is the subtle positioning of each combatant as the fight takes place. I'm sure you have all seen swashbucking/swordfighting movies, they aren't standing still, they are moving around each other, positioning themselves better, all while still swinging their sword. That is all a 5 foot step is. In this case you have an archer backpedaling while volleying arrows into the fighter, while the fighter chases him swinging his sword in a frenzy. Also, five foot steps are intrigal to getting flanking just right, moving yourself away from a cliff edge. It is an extremely tactical manuver and I pity any game without it.
IceFractal 06-28-06, 04:13 AM	To anyone who find it "unrealistic" that the archer can just step back from the warrior and fire, consider the reverse situation. The archer has just stepped around a corner, and the warrior charges him. Isn't it "unrealistic" that the archer can't step back around the corner and render the charge useless? These are both effects of turn-based combat. One of the most important things to remember for any discussion of "realism" in D&D combat is this: The actions happening by the rules do not exactly represent the way the battle is occuring! When two warriors are swing at each-other, it does not occur that one of them stands still while the other takes several swings, and then they switch roles. All actions are simultaneous. If the warrior is taking 5' steps towards the archer, and the archer is taking 5' steps away, then what is happening is that the warrior is trying to catch the archer, who is retreating, and staying mostly out of reach, while the warrior does manage to get some hits in. And furthermore - I, personally, can't cast spells, can't fire a bow with enough accuracy to hit targets hundreds of feet away, can't swing a greatsword for hours, and can't sneak up behind a trained guard and slit his throat. However, I sure as heck can take a step away from somebody while keeping my guard up. It's easier and simpler than 99% of the actions D&D characters routinely take in combat, so in what way is it "unrealistic?"
danielinthewolvesden 06-28-06, 10:47 AM	WTF. D&D was not created until 1974, and then it wasn't widely available. I started DMing in 1976. I had to mail order my gaming supplies (like dice) from the Source in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. Do you perhaps mean 1982? Nope, 1972, altho I'd guess you could say "DMing" is a stretch. We played Chainmail fantasy, then got one of the first printed copies of the original three Volume set- we got the first print run, without the card-stock covers.
TheSkinnySkeleton 06-28-06, 12:20 PM	Heheh, I have a different 5-foot-step situation in my campaign: I actually house-ruled attacks of opportunities out of my campaign, and the party's main archer STILL takes 5-foot-steps with every action. Upon asking him why he bothers, he answers "because I can." And before people start jumping down my throat for nixing AoO's, let me explain that I UNDERSTAND them just fine. I banned them from this campaign only, purely because I wanted to run a different style of game. I didn't want the PCs to be "adventurers," I wanted them to be heroes. In my opinion, AoO's often detract from heroic actions in combat, by making players too sketched out about advancing into the midst of battle. In any case, while dropping the AoO rule nerfed a few other tactics as well (I also changed a few feats to make things still usable), and there have been multiple times when both the players and I wished we could have gotten an AoO in, the results have been exactly what I had hoped for. The players DO run into combat more often and attempt braver and riskier things. Which is the effect I wanted--high fantasy a la Hollywood. :P I'm still bringing AoO's back next campaign though. Anyways, my somewhat related question is: since AoO's are nerfed in my campaign, is there any real benefit the party's archer gains from taking 5-foot-steps? And is there any way I can still exploit his 5FS tendencies?
olshanski_home 06-28-06, 12:30 PM	Nope, 1972, altho I'd guess you could say "DMing" is a stretch. We played Chainmail fantasy, then got one of the first printed copies of the original three Volume set- we got the first print run, without the card-stock covers.Chainmail I agree was published in 1971, but Dungeons and Dragons (as 3 brown pamphlets) was published in 1974 (1000 copy print run), and first appeared at Gencon 1974.