PDA

View Full Version : Idea: Help melee by weakening 5' steps (PEACH)



Yitzi
2012-09-12, 08:52 PM
Melee characters are supposed to be dangerous in close combat. They're supposed to be able to use AoOs to prevent or at least heavily discourage casting and archery in their threatened area. (This wouldn't by itself solve the problem of wizards being too powerful, but would definitely help in conjunction with mobility-based fixes and some self-buffing fixes). The reason this doesn't work is that the caster/archer can just 5-foot step out of the threatened area before casting or shooting. Therefore, one possible approach to help boost melee is the following change:

A 5' step does not take place before or after other actions in that character's turn, but rather simultaneously with them. Throughout the turn, the character is considered to be in both spaces for purposes of AoOs, valid targets, etc.

Thoughts?

TuggyNE
2012-09-12, 09:22 PM
Melee becomes somewhat better at lockdown, archers have yet one more problem to overcome, and all characters have more trouble using scrolls and potions in combat.

It's not the worst solution, but it does have some unfortunate side effects.

Yitzi
2012-09-13, 08:37 AM
Melee becomes somewhat better at lockdown, archers have yet one more problem to overcome, and all characters have more trouble using scrolls and potions in combat.

It's not the worst solution, but it does have some unfortunate side effects.

What are those unfortunate side-effects? Everything you described is part of what's intended. It's meant to make melee more effective at the expense of everyone else (including archers), and weakening in-combat scrolls and potions will tend to hurt casters much more than noncasters (as most worthwhile potions can be used beforehand).

NPC White Mage
2012-09-13, 10:37 AM
Why not just brew up a feat that gives melee characters the ability to take AoO's against 5' Steps? Of course this needs to be done fairly, maybe a minus to-hit on the AoO, and it counts as your AoO for that round? Or maybe a reduced damage hit? Just some ideas.

I understand where you are coming from though. Playing as a melee character, archers, especially those with a level of scout for Skirmish, were annoying to pin down, because of 5' steps, same goes for casters as well.

So, as I proposed, just simply make a feat, with-in fairness, that allows melee based characters to get AoO's against 5-ft steps.

Yitzi
2012-09-13, 03:52 PM
Why not just brew up a feat that gives melee characters the ability to take AoO's against 5' Steps?

1. For something this basic to how they're supposed to work, I'd rather not impose a feat tax.
2. It still doesn't allow spell disruption. Admittedly, they could still move to avoid that, but that's a more significant action.

TuggyNE
2012-09-13, 05:01 PM
What are those unfortunate side-effects? Everything you described is part of what's intended. It's meant to make melee more effective at the expense of everyone else (including archers), and weakening in-combat scrolls and potions will tend to hurt casters much more than noncasters (as most worthwhile potions can be used beforehand).

I was specifically referring to archers getting blasted yet again. Won't someone think of the poor little Ranger children?

Also, in nil- to low-op groups, in-combat use of potions is arguably more common for mundanes than casters, although that's a niche case.

Yitzi
2012-09-13, 05:24 PM
I was specifically referring to archers getting blasted yet again.

Well, what did you expect from an "improving melee" thread? There are approaches to help ranged, but that's a separate issue.


Won't someone think of the poor little Ranger children?

An optimized ranger is actually quite a dangerous enemy, especially once he gets HiPS.


Also, in nil- to low-op groups, in-combat use of potions is arguably more common for mundanes than casters, although that's a niche case.

Those generally fall into either buffs (applied before melee combat is engaged, so it's not affected), or healing (which in such groups is usually applied by clerics instead.)

TuggyNE
2012-09-13, 08:42 PM
Well, what did you expect from an "improving melee" thread? There are approaches to help ranged, but that's a separate issue.

Well, generally I expect a given homebrew fix to avoid significantly worsening balance in other areas, even if its focus is not on them. For example, a Fighter fix that allows the character to give an ally an extra standard action: it's handy for melee and ranged, but it's even more impressive for spellcasters, so on the whole it actually decreases balance.

Basically, no collateral damage.

If you believe archers are already unbalancingly powerful, well, I happen to disagree, except for some corner cases.

Yitzi
2012-09-13, 09:34 PM
Well, generally I expect a given homebrew fix to avoid significantly worsening balance in other areas, even if its focus is not on them.

Usually that's true; in this case, however, it's different because it's hard to even imagine a ranged fix that wouldn't solve this as well. Essentially, once you've fixed the problems that range already has (lack of damage and the fact that casters can do it better), this won't make the problem substantially worse.


If you believe archers are already unbalancingly powerful

They aren't. Rangers can be, but archers in general definitely need help.

Waargh!
2012-09-13, 10:18 PM
Well, coming from another thread, below aremy ideas on it that would introduce melee locking and fix the 5' step issue as well.

Indeed then archers could be a problem. But you could just have a feat that negates all of this. Still melee characters will have the bonus against ranged based enemies, but players will be unaffected.


My post:

Melee locking
You are considered locked in melee with all targets you threaten and/or threaten you while you are wielding a weapon you are proficient with. If a target passes through your threaten range itís considered locked in melee as long as it remains on a space you threaten. You need to be able to target a creature to be considered locked in melee.
Certain restrictions apply to your targets as described below:
Attack of Opportunity: when succeeding on an AoO you disrupt the action that triggered it effectively negating its effect. The action and resources are spent. Exception: standing up
5-ft step: when your target takes a 5-ft step move that will bring them outside your threatening space, you gain an AoO.
Tumble skill: when a target is using Tumble skill to avoid an AoO against you, you still are granted one if target is passing through a space you threaten.
Defensive casting: if a spell has somatic components, you still get an AoO even if defensive casting check succeeds.

Melee threat
When fighting a target where they cannot threaten you effectively while locked in melee, you get a considerable advantage against them. You focus fully on attacking them as you fear not any retaliation.
Challenge effective melee threat: you may choose to ignore a targets melee threat when performing a melee attack against them. The target gets a free melee attack with the same attack role as an AoO against you. If the result of the d20 is less than 15, they can choose to take 15. If the attack succeeds consider it as a hit that has an exact equal of targets AC for all special ability purposes (no critical hit threat when taking 15). If the attack deals damage you lose your attack action. If the attack misses you may gain role a dice and take a minimum of 15 as above against that target. You can repeat this for all attacks on a given round (if attack/defense would change, redo the check).
Defensive casting: while casting defensively any creature you are locked in melee with can consider you not a threat and test your potential as described above. If you cannot deal damage you provoke an AoO if you succeed on your concentration check.

Note 1: combat Reflexes
It is advised to give monsters Combat Reflexes as melee locking makes this single feat vital. You can give it for free to everyone. This is the recommendation.

Note 2: other class features
It should be noted that some class abilities may break the melee locking rules or others may not function as intended. It is implied that these abilities either have these rules applied or not. If you perform a combat maneuver that provokes AoO, you may still not have the action negated. At the same time, if an action lets you move without provoking AoO it can be reasonable to apply melee locking rules.

Vital Feats
These feats allow to ease some maneuvers while in melee by a "feat tax". Quick feet is to allow melee fighters that rely on speed and maneuverability. Battle caster feats is to allow spell casters to cast while locked in melee if they have sufficient melee capabilities. The additional ability of Quick Draw is designed for Archers as to be able to defend themselves when a threat is approaching. Archers still suffer from Melee locking, but they can defend themselves by not suffering from melee threat.

Quick feet
Requirement: Fighter, Rogue or Monk level 4 (or other suitable classes)
Effect: you can ignore the restrictions of melee locking while using Tumble skill or taking a 5-ft step.

Battle caster
Requirement: Any caster
Effect: you may choose to have your effective melee threat challenged by all creatures you are locked in melee with. If you succeed you can cast instead a spell with a maximum time of a standard action that has touch or personal range without provoking AoO if you succeed on your defensive casting check.

Improved Battle caster
Recharacter nt: Battle Caster feat, caster level 11
Effect: you can use spells with Close range as well.

Quick Draw (additional effect)
Special: you may draw a weapon as an immediate action if you have a free hand.


Fighter Feats
Just some quick ideas on some feats that can enhance these rules:
Note: it can be suggested that Paladins, Rangers, Monks, Barbarians or other classes that can effectively count as melee warriors be considered as Fighters for feat purposes. This is the recommendation


Protector
Requirement: Fighter level 1
Effect: If you have effectively attacked and damaged a creature you are locked in melee with, your allies on their coming turn may perform a 5-ft step or pass using tumble skill or cast defensively ignoring the restrictions of Melee locking for that particular creature. Additionally, once a round as an immediate action you may also take the free attack against a target that is locked in melee with you and chooses to challenge the effective melee threat of an ally he is also locked in melee with.

Melee expertise
Requirement: Fighter level 4 (or other suitable classes)
Effect: the restrictions of melee locking and melee threat donít apply to you. You also donít provoke AoO when standing up.

Melee Crush
Requirement: Fighter level 11
Effect: when successfully challenging the effective melee threat of a target your attack deals double the damage. You may use this ability at will.


Notes on the mechanics
Melee locking can ensure that you have the upper hand even if the target could otherwise disintegrate you in a couple of seconds if they were allowed to. Melee threat ensures that if a target is really not a threat, you can focus on crushing them. Or you can ensure that they donít escape your melee locking out of luck. You can consider 5 main categories:

Master: Fighters that will use feats to enhance their bonus and can make a non-master character really suffer while locked in melee.
Good: All characters that rely on melee should have a high enough attack not to have their effective melee threat challenged. They should also not be too worried when locked in melee even if they could have an ability that cannot be used (i.e. cast a buff spell).
Average: Characters that have melee capabilities but donít only rely on them should suffer from melee locking but not from melee threat. Certain feats can aid them to get out of the difficult situation
Bad: Characters that cannot effectively fight in melee will suffer from melee threat as most attacks against them will hit. They are limited while locked in melee and their best case scenario is losing an action to escape (i.e. with a spell).

Concerns: if you consider Archers under powered already either some feats can allow them to balance this. I feel Archers should be able to fight in melee either, so excluded them.
An abuses can be by elevating your AC maybe (i.e. combat expertise) in order to claim melee threat bonus. The fix for this is to take the Melee expertise feat as the intend is for fighters not to really have additional rules to worry about. Still it makes sense that if you cannot defend yourself you suffer the same results from a powerful enemy regardless if you specialize in melee or not.

TuggyNE
2012-09-13, 11:30 PM
Melee threat
When fighting a target where they cannot threaten you effectively while locked in melee, you get a considerable advantage against them. You focus fully on attacking them as you fear not any retaliation.
Challenge effective melee threat: you may choose to ignore a targets melee threat when performing a melee attack against them. The target gets a free melee attack with the same attack role as an AoO against you.

This would be interesting, except that it is almost nonsensical; it is impossible to make a melee attack on a target you do not threaten, unless you are wielding e.g. a whip (which does non-lethal damage and does not threaten).


Vital Feats
These feats allow to ease some maneuvers while in melee by a "feat tax". Quick feet is to allow melee fighters that rely on speed and maneuverability. Battle caster feats is to allow spell casters to cast while locked in melee if they have sufficient melee capabilities. The additional ability of Quick Draw is designed for Archers as to be able to defend themselves when a threat is approaching. Archers still suffer from Melee locking, but they can defend themselves by not suffering from melee threat.

I seriously dislike adding feat taxes for certain classes, especially when the normal descriptions of the skills involved give a perfectly good justification for allowing them to do that anyway (e.g. Tumble).


Fighter Feats
Just some quick ideas on some feats that can enhance these rules:
Note: it can be suggested that Paladins, Rangers, Monks, Barbarians or other classes that can effectively count as melee warriors be considered as Fighters for feat purposes. This is the recommendation

This further dilutes the value of the Fighter class.

Waargh!
2012-09-14, 12:47 AM
Melee threat challenge is to be performed on a valid target you can hit. For example you want to hit target. You challenge first the targets ability to fight in melee if you feel so. If it fails to hit even with a guaranteed minimum of 15 then it cannot parry or effectively counter attack etc etc. You can consider them an easy melee target. If you mean that the target cannot hit back if you have a reach weapon then you can still challenge it but maybe not take the damage if it actually succeed.

You can give the feat for free in the case you don't like feat tax.

Yitzi
2012-09-14, 06:37 AM
Well, coming from another thread, below aremy ideas on it that would introduce melee locking and fix the 5' step issue as well.

A bit complicated for the quick-fix this is supposed to be. It also allows one melee character to lock another melee character in place, which I feel negates the whole purpose of the 5' step.

Waargh!
2012-09-14, 08:08 AM
Well lest put aside the melee threat and only consider the melee locking. There are two differences from our posts:
1) The way I out it you get an AoO against tumble and defensive casting or similar abilities not only 5' step
2) You also actually stop the action if you hit actually locking someone

For the first part you don't block a caster at all. Maybe only in very first levels. In higher defensive casting and tumble DC are very low as they don't scale well. Then why not just get a weapon with reach and achieve the same thing?
Even if you succeed usually one AoO does not do that great amount of damage, that is why introduced actual locking. Funny thing with current rules is that it is more efficient to grab the caster than slice them with your axe. So the idea of locking someone is there just through a weird tactical move. Grapple then is more complex and painful than the way I posted melee locking. Using trip rules the same story. So in the end melee locking just makes it simpler.

You want to lock a melee monster if you want to protect your ranged based allies or casters. It is hard to match a Wizards power, but if you enable them to cast a spell you are useful ad well. PCs can choose one of the feats I posted to get away with these rules (again you can give it for free) but monsters are always the main target.

Melee threat is complex indeed. Could be greatly simplified if needed. But once read and understood it simply means you get a min of 15 on your roll against non-melee targets, that is all. The complexity is to define the non-melee characters which is not straightforward in my mind.

Yitzi
2012-09-14, 09:43 AM
Well lest put aside the melee threat and only consider the melee locking. There are two differences from our posts:
1) The way I out it you get an AoO against tumble and defensive casting or similar abilities not only 5' step

I don't see tumble as so much of a problem there, as he put ranks in it (a significant investment, especially since it's not a class skill for most powerful classes) to get that effect; it does need to scale better with level but should be usable to avoid AoOs at the cost of spending your entire turn on the action.


2) You also actually stop the action if you hit actually locking someone

Other than movement (if you're a non-tripper), standing up, and archery (if you don't go for a disarm or sunder with your AoO), I don't really see that much difference, as potions and scrolls can be sundered with the AoO and casting is subject to concentration anyway. It's definitely an interesting and worthwhile idea, but not really necessary enough to be part of a fix.

Also, you missed 3: You can lock someone in place even if they're trying to do nothing more than gradually move the fight over (5' at a time) to another area. Considering that it generally is possible to move a melee fight in that way, I'd consider that a bad thing.


For the first part you don't block a caster at all. Maybe only in very first levels. In higher defensive casting and tumble DC are very low as they don't scale well.

Point; this works much better when combined with scaling for defensive casting and tumble DCs. How's this for ideas:
-Defensive casting: The DC is equal to 10 plus the spell level plus the BAB of the person you're trying to avoid AoOs from (if there's more than one, use the highest. You can choose to use a lower DC and simply take the AoOs from the higher-BAB enemies.)
-Tumble: Add the enemy's BAB to the DC.


Then why not just get a weapon with reach and achieve the same thing?

And then they can step within 5' and do the same thing. You'd need the ability to threaten both the squares next to you and the ones beyond those, and that tends to be far more build-restricting than makes for an interesting game.


Even if you succeed usually one AoO does not do that great amount of damage

If it's enough to disrupt a spell, break a potion bottle or scroll, disarm the bow he's attacking with, or trip him so he can't move, it's pretty good.


that is why introduced actual locking. Funny thing with current rules is that it is more efficient to grab the caster than slice them with your axe. So the idea of locking someone is there just through a weird tactical move. Grapple then is more complex and painful than the way I posted melee locking. Using trip rules the same story. So in the end melee locking just makes it simpler.

It makes for simpler gameplay, buta bigger (and thus more complicated) rule change. It's not a bad idea, but doesn't serve the role that this was meant to do. It also won't help against 5' steps unless they provoke, which raises the issue mentioned earlier.

However, for a more substantial rule change, your idea could work well (at least for the locking bit) with one addition: 5' steps only provoke AoOs from enemies that you do not threaten. And yes that means that a melee monster can move toward the party caster without provoking...but only at 5' per round, which is not all that dangerous.

Waargh!
2012-09-15, 08:39 PM
1) I would agree on adding the BAB as a penalty to defensive casting and tumble. It makes it very hard to use defensive casting on higher levels, but Spells get much more powerful so balance-wise its fine. Tumble progresses higher than BAB but if you invested on it then there is no problem.

2) There is one point though that you missed: moving and then casting. Yes, if you take 5' step and then cast you get an AoO and need to make a concentration check. If you just move 20' though and then cast the spell without a check. The only reason you can do this is because the game is turn based so this is very hard to actually imagine, so it has little logic. If both combatants are ranged or both are melee then there is no problem, but when you have a melee against a ranged character this particular scenario is problematic.

3) For moving in melee I have it as you can move but not leave threatening area. So you can cycle around or move on one direction as long as your opponent moves as well. But indeed maybe it can be simpler overall as:
-You cannot take a 5' step move as you can currently
-As part of a melee attack once a round you can take a 5' step move without provoking AoO.
It is a bit simpler than your ruling. It allows also flexibility on melee characters to step out the fight and drink a potion with an AoO. Thoughts?

4) There are still some things that you won't achieve, but that is fair enough considering the added complexity to solve them.
-The Fighter of the party cannot lock an enemy to protect their casters and archers. They can make an AoO against them but effectively not slow them down. So the melee Fighter types loses their protector role which makes the sense if you have a heavily armored melee type and a powerful but not so tough spellcaster type in same party.
-You rely on the AoO dealing heavy damage were I rely on AoO high attack. I believe the second is more accurate as you can have a monster or PC that relies on multiple attacks or special attacks to deal damage but you always need a high attack bonus to do anything useful. Especially monsters don't seem to be very optimal on dealing damage with one attack and can have all kinds of special attacks.
-If you are facing multiple enemies in melee its even harder to escape, this makes sense. This can be reflected well if you rely on one AoO hitting, where if you rely on damage this is not the case. 5 weak monsters can deal the same as 1 normal one.

Yitzi
2012-09-16, 05:33 PM
1) I would agree on adding the BAB as a penalty to defensive casting and tumble. It makes it very hard to use defensive casting on higher levels

Actually, it doesn't; it makes it pretty hard to use defensive casting at any level against CR-appropriate enemies, but against lower-level enemies or less-than-full-BAB enemies it's quite feasible.

Alternatively, you could add only half the enemy's BAB; that way, casting your full-power spells is still very difficult (as the other "half" comes from the spell level addition to the DC), but a high-level caster could usually cast a low-level spell defensively.


Tumble progresses higher than BAB

Barring heavy investment, it actually progresses at about the same rate.


2) There is one point though that you missed: moving and then casting. Yes, if you take 5' step and then cast you get an AoO and need to make a concentration check. If you just move 20' though and then cast the spell without a check.

True; on the flip side, he can trip you and then it turns out that you didn't move after all.

Think of it as the wizard moving away before casting so that the important part won't be interrupted; it makes perfect sense.

The best counter to that would actually probably be simply making all the standard-action spells into FRAs (which is probably a good idea anyway), or applying some penalty if they're taken as standard actions.


If both combatants are ranged or both are melee then there is no problem, but when you have a melee against a ranged character this particular scenario is problematic.

You still end up that the melee character gets an AoO every round, which is a pretty significant advantage even if he doesn't use it to trip and thereby prevent the other guy's action.


3) For moving in melee I have it as you can move but not leave threatening area. So you can cycle around or move on one direction as long as your opponent moves as well.

That still allows one character to prevent the melee from moving without breaking it, which I don't think is very realistic.


-You cannot take a 5' step move as you can currently
-As part of a melee attack once a round you can take a 5' step move without provoking AoO.

This seems good.


-The Fighter of the party cannot lock an enemy to protect their casters and archers. They can make an AoO against them but effectively not slow them down. So the melee Fighter types loses their protector role which makes the sense if you have a heavily armored melee type and a powerful but not so tough spellcaster type in same party.

I'd rather get the protector role in other ways than AoOs. That said, trips are wonderful things if used correctly...


-You rely on the AoO dealing heavy damage were I rely on AoO high attack. I believe the second is more accurate as you can have a monster or PC that relies on multiple attacks or special attacks to deal damage but you always need a high attack bonus to do anything useful. Especially monsters don't seem to be very optimal on dealing damage with one attack and can have all kinds of special attacks.

The nastiest AoOs aren't (with the exception of spell-disrupting AoOs, which don't require such high damage) damaging attacks. Trip, sunder, disarm...


-If you are facing multiple enemies in melee its even harder to escape, this makes sense. This can be reflected well if you rely on one AoO hitting, where if you rely on damage this is not the case. 5 weak monsters can deal the same as 1 normal one.

Again, trips will do quite well here, while still preventing 5 too-weak monsters from stopping someone who logically should be able to ignore them.

Waargh!
2012-09-16, 09:41 PM
I would go then with:
-You cannot take a 5' step move as you can currently
-As part of a melee attack once a round you can take a 5' step move without provoking AoO.
-Spells and spell-like abilities require a minimum of a full-round action. Except Quickened spells which require a swift action (or better a standard action)

More in details:
I see you rely on Trip mainly. But if you trip someone that is trying to move away then you lost your AoO and they can cast a spell now in your face even if prone. Unless you have combat reflexes. Then trip can be avoided in certain situations. For example

-Fighting a dwarf cleric or any kind of monster with four legs with spell like abilities. Or a Druid wild shaped.
-You provoke an AoO and a monster can have a good enough attack bonus to hit with a natural attack even if it can cast spells or spell-like abilities.
-Casters can have a high dexterity. Not as high as the Fighter's strength but in lower levels the difference might not be that high.
-In higher levels the caster can fly for example. It just might not be that safe to rely on trips as something as core as melee locking.
-Monster can be of a bigger size
-A monster might have a decent Strength even if they use spells. They are monsters, it might make sense to have extraordinary physical stats.
-You can invest in Improved Trip and a weapon with a bonus on trip and make sure you have means to increase your size. But this seems kind of a lot to invest just to be able to melee lock someone. It should rely on something more basic that is why attack bonus to hit on an AoO seems like a more solid choice.

Thus in the end I would agree of making spells a full-round action. Relying on Trip just isn't solid enough. Think of playing a melee Rogue that relies on Dexterity or any Dexterous Fighter in general. Which are exactly the types that should make it very hard to ignore in a melee combat.

Then grapple is an option, but you need a free hand so cannot always be used. There are monsters that can effectively use it. For humanoids it is also a very awkward maneuver to perform (i.e. Pathfinder rules give a penalty if not using two hands). Plus then you are grappled as well and take the usual penalties.

Disarm and Sunder are rarely useful as a caster doesn't require a weapon and ranged-based attacks from monsters not always either. They are more likely ways to counter melee-based targets or Archers.

Regarding BAB penalty, I think indeed it is not too much a penalty on higher levels it should be about right. Half the BAB bonus is too low especially since not everyone has a full BAB.

Regarding fighting multiple targets you can argue that you should ignore them if you are much higher level. I would prefer you do not if you are a ranged based character but it is a matter of choice.

Yitzi
2012-09-19, 08:30 AM
I would go then with:
-You cannot take a 5' step move as you can currently
-As part of a melee attack once a round you can take a 5' step move without provoking AoO.
-Spells and spell-like abilities require a minimum of a full-round action. Except Quickened spells which require a swift action (or better a standard action)

I'd allow standard action spells at a penalty, but overall looks good.


More in details:
I see you rely on Trip mainly. But if you trip someone that is trying to move away then you lost your AoO and they can cast a spell now in your face even if prone.

Of course, that means that after that they're useless unless they plan to get up one round and then the next round move away and repeat...which means that they lose half their actions and you get an AoO at least every other round, which is quite substantial (if it's not enough, that's an issue of nerfing casters, not helping melee.)


-Fighting a dwarf cleric or any kind of monster with four legs with spell like abilities. Or a Druid wild shaped.

Dwarves actually are only stable when they're firmly planted on the ground; walking might not count. But yes, a larger monster can't be stopped that way, so other means are probably needed to be able to block it (but not to completely keep it from moving, as that's absurd*).

*Well, unless he's really skilled, but then just give him a bonus to trip.


-You provoke an AoO and a monster can have a good enough attack bonus to hit with a natural attack even if it can cast spells or spell-like abilities.

Yes, for monsters; this is more against casters and archers.


-Casters can have a high dexterity. Not as high as the Fighter's strength but in lower levels the difference might not be that high.

Yeah, that is a concern unless it's a tripper build.


-In higher levels the caster can fly for example. It just might not be that safe to rely on trips as something as core as melee locking.

And why can't you trip him when he tries to take off or move-fly within your threatened area?


Thus in the end I would agree of making spells a full-round action. Relying on Trip just isn't solid enough. Think of playing a melee Rogue that relies on Dexterity or any Dexterous Fighter in general. Which are exactly the types that should make it very hard to ignore in a melee combat.

Yes, because if you ignore them they'll poke you full of holes in sensitive places. Not because they can hold you back.


Disarm and Sunder are rarely useful as a caster doesn't require a weapon and ranged-based attacks from monsters not always either

Yeah, it's more a disrupt-ranged-attack method.


Regarding BAB penalty, I think indeed it is not too much a penalty on higher levels it should be about right. Half the BAB bonus is too low especially since not everyone has a full BAB.

If they don't have full BAB, they shouldn't be trying to do the job of someone who does.

Fitz10019
2012-09-19, 01:30 PM
-Spells and spell-like abilities require a minimum of a full-round action.

That's a huge change, and raises a lot of questions. Instead, I suggest something close to an existing rule.

Taken from the rules for mounted combat, archery:

You make the attack roll cast the spell when your mount has you have completed half its your movement.

That will affect targeting, too.