PDA

View Full Version : [House] Melee Reach



Matthew
2007-07-15, 07:22 PM
Updated

So, currently there are three stages of Melee Reach in D&D: Reach, Normal and Grapple.

In my House Ruled (A)D&D Game I wanted to distinguish between the 'Reach' of Daggers, Short Swords, Long Swords and Great Swords. The way I have been doing it so far is to:

1) Remove the -4 AB Penalty to Daggers, Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons when being used in Grapples.

2) Create a new 'Combat Distance' for Light Weapons.

i.e.

Close Quarter Fighting

Any Character can partially enter an opponent's Square in place of a 5' Step (though he is still considered to be in his own square for all other effects).*

At this distance, combatants using Light Weapons attack normally, but Characters using One Handed and Two Handed Weapons have a -4 Penalty to Attack.

If the Character whose square is partially entered withdraws 5', he may attack his opponent as though he was in the Square he has just left during his Action.

As an Immediate Action, that Character may 'follow up' his retreating opponent and enter the square he has just vacated without provoking an Attack of Opportunity. [However, if he leaves a Threatened Square by this movement he does provoke an Attack of Opportunity from that opponent.]

*[Edit] Withdrawing from 2.5' to 5' is also the equivalent of a 5' Step.

The idea is to make Light Weapons more useful for Melee types and create the potential for Push Backs (I have found it to be quite a fun variant).

Example 1

A line of Warrior 1 Romans armed with Short Swords and Heavy Shields charges a line of Warrior 1 Gauls armed with One Handed Weapons and Heavy Shields.

Round 1
Roman line Charges Gallic line, Gallic line Full Attacks.

Round 2
Roman line enters Close Combat and Full Attacks, Gallic line withdraws 5' and Full Attacks.*

Round 3
Roman line advances 5' and Full Attacks, Gallic line Full Attacks and reforms.

Round 4
Roman line enters Close Combat and Full Attacks, Gallic line withdraws 5' and Full Attacks.

Round 5
Roman line advances 5' and Full Attacks, Gallic line Full Attacks and reforms.

...and so on.**

* At this juncture the Roman line could use an Immediate Action to advance into the squares just vacated by the Gallic line, but each would draw an Attack of Opportunity from the adjacent Gallic Combatant by doing so. If they wanted to press the attack very closely they could do so, but otherwise it is better to stagger the advance.

** This is, of course, assuming no casualties. The actual combat would cause holes to appear in the lines which would need to be filled and could delay the advance. Some brave souls in the second rank might be even inclined to try a 10' Charge . The advantage, though, is largely with the defender during a persistant assault, in that he has the extra time to reform his ranks when the Attacker expends his 5' Step to enter Close Combat.

Example 2

A Human Fighter 1 with Long Sword and Heavy Shield is charged by an Orc Warrior 1 with Short Sword and Heavy Shield on open ground.

Round 1
Orc Charges the Human, the Human Full Attacks.

Round 2
Orc enters Close Combat and Full Attacks, Human steps 5' to the left and Full Attacks.

Round 3
Orc enters Close Combat and Full Attacks, Human steps 5' forwards and Full Attacks (essentially circling his otherwise sationary foe).


Example 3

A Human Fighter 1 with Long Sword and Heavy Shield is charged by an Orc Warrior 1 with Short Sword and Heavy Shield in a 5' Tunnel.

Round 1
Orc Charges the Human, the Human Full Attacks.

Round 2
Orc enters Close Combat and Full Attacks, Human withdraws 5' and Full Attacks.

Round 3
Orc advances 5' and Full Attacks, Human Full Attacks.

Round 4
Orc enters Close Combat and Full Attacks, Human withdraws 5' and Full Attacks.

etc...

Any opinions (positive or negative) are welcome.

Townopolis
2007-07-15, 07:41 PM
While I have no stance on how balanced/unbalanced this is, I would like to point out that one of the advantages of longer weapons is that they can keep people with smaller weapons about a sword's-length away from them by threatening them whenever they try to move in.

I hope this doesn't mean I'm a catgirl murderer now.

Matthew
2007-07-15, 08:08 PM
It certainly doesn't make you a Cat Girl Murderer. Although, a longer Weapon does let you strike at a longer range, it does nothing to actually prevent an opponent from closing in on you if that is what they wish to do, at which point you have to either step back or fight at a disadvantage (or such is one theory pertaining to the Gladius).

One could seek to model that by making closing to 2.5' provoke an Attack of Opportunity, but I think that would make this a somewhat redundant rule; a Feat that negated such an attack initially sounded appealing to me, but I eventually rejected it because there are too many Feats and a 'Readied Action' already allows much the same thing.

Golthur
2007-07-15, 08:30 PM
I would suggest that if an opponent with a longer reach weapon readied an action to "hold his opponent at bay" - that is, threatening them whenever they tried to close without actually attacking, per se, the light-weaponed-opponent should be prevented from closing, or should, at the very least, suffer an AoO for his troubles if he attempts to do so.

I'd also suggest some sort of reduced damage for an opponent with the larger weapon if he's been engaged too closely (possibly with the exception of thrusting weapons like spears or the gladius), since he can't use the entire leverage of his weapon. Picks, despite being piercing weapons, would suffer the penalty.

Matthew
2007-07-15, 08:51 PM
Hmmn. Not sure why that would be necessary. If someone is going to close, they're going to close. If you have a Readied Action to Attack them as they do, then you can use it, if not I see no reason to force an Attack of Opportunity (this, after all, only works against one opponent at a time).

The reduced Damage thing was something I gave some thought to when designing this rule. In the end I rejected it for a couple of reasons. First, there is no real precedent in D&D for doing so (i.e. niether Non Proficient nor Characters in a Grapple nor Characters Fighting Defensively suffer a penalty to Damage). The other reason was that this was designed for (A)D&D where Damage is on a much shorter range, so the effect might be quite severe (maybe even too severe in 3.x).

Anxe
2007-07-15, 10:01 PM
How would this work with two-weapon fighting?

Matthew
2007-07-28, 06:52 PM
It would work as normal, but with the penalties for each weapon.

i.e.
Short Sword and Short Sword: 0/0
Long Sword and Short Sword: -4/0
Long Sword and Long Sword: -4/-4

Is that what you were asking?

[Edit]
Any more thoughts about this? Can people see this sort of thing as a Feat in 3e?

Eighth_Seraph
2007-07-29, 04:43 PM
Melikes. I think it does alot to show why people choose to specialize in using daggers, kukri and their fists when there are more powerful weapons out there. Good job.

brian c
2007-07-29, 08:54 PM
I like it, but I have to disagree that longer weapons can't hold an opponent back. The concept already exists in D&D; to use a cliched PHB example, Regdar is fighting an Ogre (10ft reach). If Regdar charges, the Ogre gets an AoO when Regdar goes from 10ft to 5ft away, because Regdar is moving from one threatened square to another. If Regdar stops at 10ft away and then takes a 5ft step in, there is no AoO because 5ft steps never give AoOs. Honestly, this is dumb and unrealistic. If someone can reach you, then they have keep you from closing, or at least try. A somewhat realistic way of doing this would be to have either opposed Dex checks or Initiative checks between the two participants; if the closer wins, they can move in, if the big guy (or bigger weapon) wins, he gets an AoO and stays at the same distance. Most of the time, this will result in the smaller quicker guy with a smaller weapon winning, but occasionally he'll get smashed back.

Matthew
2007-07-29, 09:13 PM
As I understand it, it is more the lethality of real world combat that allows combatants using weapons with a longer reach to keep their opponents at a reasonable distance. Where this breaks down is when the opponent is Heavily Armoured and capable of resisting initial contact or has use of a Shield and can use it to block the opening attack (which is the theory behind modern understanding of the use of the Roman Scutum and Gladius, which basically helps to explain the tendency towards shorter blades and the advantage it provides). Of course, those are mainly theoretical explanations.

Anywho, glad you both like the mechanical implementation. Obviously, there is room for variation of application.

Golthur
2007-07-30, 09:58 AM
As I understand it, it is more the lethality of real world combat that allows combatants using weapons with a longer reach to keep their opponents at a reasonable distance. Where this breaks down is when the opponent is Heavily Armoured and capable of resisting initial contact or has use of a Shield and can use it to block the opening attack (which is the theory behind modern understanding of the use of the Roman Scutum and Gladius, which basically helps to explain the tendency towards shorter blades and the advantage it provides). Of course, those are mainly theoretical explanations.

Anywho, glad you both like the mechanical implementation. Obviously, there is room for variation of application.

Well, yes, when one successful stab with a sword can render you dead, you tend to be a bit careful approaching someone who's got one :smile:

That's really the crux of the issue, though - in real combat, someone will tend to be somewhat careful approaching someone with a longer weapon (although, as you say, if they're armoured enough to weather it they might not care so much), but in D&D that's certainly not the case. Even an AoO isn't really sufficient deterrent.

Lapak
2007-07-30, 10:18 AM
Well, yes, when one successful stab with a sword can render you dead, you tend to be a bit careful approaching someone who's got one :smile:

That's really the crux of the issue, though - in real combat, someone will tend to be somewhat careful approaching someone with a longer weapon (although, as you say, if they're armoured enough to weather it they might not care so much), but in D&D that's certainly not the case. Even an AoO isn't really sufficient deterrent.Which is why I can't say I like this suggestion too much; it tips the balance too far the other way. Once dagger-guy gets into range - which he almost certainly will, since one sword thrust isn't enough to put him down - the advantage shifts to him for the rest of the combat, and the question becomes 'why would anyone use a weapon larger than a dagger?' instead of 'why would anyone use a weapon smaller than a sword?' I'm not sure that the lower damage of a dagger is enough to offset a -4 penalty to hit for the sword-wielder.

I like it in principle, though; I just think it ends up throwing things too far in the other direction. I haven't play-tested it or anything, though; I could be wrong.

brian c
2007-07-30, 10:48 AM
Which is why I can't say I like this suggestion too much; it tips the balance too far the other way. Once dagger-guy gets into range - which he almost certainly will, since one sword thrust isn't enough to put him down - the advantage shifts to him for the rest of the combat, and the question becomes 'why would anyone use a weapon larger than a dagger?' instead of 'why would anyone use a weapon smaller than a sword?' I'm not sure that the lower damage of a dagger is enough to offset a -4 penalty to hit for the sword-wielder.

I like it in principle, though; I just think it ends up throwing things too far in the other direction. I haven't play-tested it or anything, though; I could be wrong.

Unless I misread something, it's very easy for sword-guy (um... not the poster here by that name, any person using a sword, which i guess could include him) to take a step back and reestablish the 5ft range, attacking without penalty. Basically, in this sort of one-on-one fight you're moving 5ft backwards every round. The dagger-guy is pressing the advantage, which doesn't seem quite right; I'm not saying he can't win, but it seems odd for him to be able to be so aggressive, so easily, and not get smacked down for it.

RTGoodman
2007-07-30, 10:50 AM
Any more thoughts about this? Can people see this sort of thing as a Feat in 3e?

I like the idea of the small, quick guy with the little weapons running in and stabbing the giant half-orc with and axe so big he can't fight back, but it seems too complicated (to me, at least) to implement it for everyone all the time.

Also, balance-wise (though I'll be the first to admit I'm no master of determining balance), it seems to give a big advantage to someone who's running around with daggers or something. If he can just stay close (e.g., ready actions to five-foot step if his opponent steps back), he'll win the fight because the other guy will never be able to succeed at hitting as well as his quicker brethren.

Personally, I think you could make this a feat (or feat chain with 2-3 feats), or (my personal preference) a Prestige Class. I think that would be best - it makes sure that you don't have everyone doing it, it fills a specific niche (i.e., a combatant who gets in close to his enemy in order to keep from getting hit but to do more damage), and it would be pretty easy to make. Personally, I'd make it easy for rogue- and swashbuckler-type builds to qualify, and probably continue with the idea that you're probably going to use daggers (so perhaps some synergy with Invisible Blade or things like that).

Yakk
2007-07-30, 10:57 AM
If you want to implement "stop strokes" in D&D:

Standard AoOs are at +10 to hit.

5' step AoOs are at normal to hit.

If an AoO hits you when you are trying an action, the action fails. So if you try a 5' step from 10' to 5' against a reach weapon, and are hit, you fail to move.

You can choose to ignore the AoO stop thrust effect, but this causes damage from the attack to be increased by x10.

Next, some weapons are "short" range. A character can consume 5' of movement and enter "short" range with one designated adjacent opponent. This provokes a +0 AoO. This does not change which 5' square either opponent occupies. "Short" range is canceled if either combatant moves more than 5' away from each other. Any combatant at "Short" range must spend an extra 5' of movement to begin movement.

At "Short" range, you are a -4 to hit with any weapon that is not rated "short" range.

At "Normal" range, "Short" range weapons are at -4 to hit.

Next, remove the "Withdraw" action. Disengaging from combat should be hard and very dangerous.

Expected use: Use AC-boosting tactics, close to "short" range with an opponent. Once you are at "short" range, your target is in serious trouble -- they have to spend 10' of movement to get out of "short" range, which provokes a +10 AoO, which sort of screws you. :)

Lapak
2007-07-30, 11:34 AM
Unless I misread something, it's very easy for sword-guy (um... not the poster here by that name, any person using a sword, which i guess could include him) to take a step back and reestablish the 5ft range, attacking without penalty. Basically, in this sort of one-on-one fight you're moving 5ft backwards every round. The dagger-guy is pressing the advantage, which doesn't seem quite right; I'm not saying he can't win, but it seems odd for him to be able to be so aggressive, so easily, and not get smacked down for it.I may have misread it myself; when it said the retreating sword-guy attacks 'as if' he were in the square he is retreating from, I assumed that the attack was with a penalty, and that dagger-guy could just keep pressing forward.

Yakk's suggestion is interesting, though. I'm not sure if it's too cumbersome to keep track of or not, but it's surely a step in the right direction. It makes it more dangerous to get into range, for sure, but retains the big advantage once you do, which feels both more 'realistic' and more balanced.

Yakk
2007-07-30, 12:38 PM
So, let's try to simplify it.

1> Standard AoOs are at +10 to hit. Bonus openings via feats are at +0 to hit.
2> "Fighting defensively" while casting reduces the AoO provoked from a +10 to +0.
3> 5' steps trigger a +0 AoO if you leave a threatened square. Retreating provokes a +0 AoO when you leave the initial threatened square.
4> If you are hit while moving, you have two options. You can stop moving, or you can choose to run through the stop-thrust. If you choose to run through the stop-thrust, you take 10x* the attack damage. You make this choice after damage is rolled.
5> The Spiked Chain takes a move-equiv action to change from a reach weapon to a normal weapon.
6> You can enter "short" range with an adjacent opponent by consuming 5' of movement. Leaving short range requires the consumption of 5' of movement and you must spend additional movement so as you are not adjacent to them. If you are AoO blocked, this leaves you at short range. You may not enter short range if you are already at short range with someone, but multiple people may enter short range with you.

Entering short range provokes an AoO from anyone who threatens the square: +0 if you are taking a 5' step to enter short range, and +10 otherwise.

Leaving short range provokes the AoO when the character leaves the square. Note that you cannot use a 5' step to leave short range -- you need at least 10' of movement to leave short range.

7> "Short" range weapons are at -4 to hit at normal range. "Normal" range weapons are at -4 to hit at short range.
8> Most light weapons and shields become short range.

<5> might apply to any other weapon with two range choices.
<1> is added because the above hurts melee ability to move -- casters need a similar hit.

Not that this makes spears kick ass -- you can keep someone at range with a spear pretty easily.

* x10 might be too much. x2 might be too little. Play with it to generate a good number. The idea is to allow a Dragon to bull through the spears of commoners, but make it painful to simply blow through a stop-thrust. As it stands, the x10 multiplier makes ignoring a stop-thrust almost always a fatally stupid idea -- which emulates real combat more closely, without making every blow fatal.

Lapak
2007-07-30, 02:53 PM
Hmm. I quite like that, actually, and it does create a hole in the near-invincible armor of casters; if someone gets up close to you you're in real trouble. The 'casting defensively' always seemed a little too easy to me once you got up to level 5 or 6; the Concentration checks were not too much of a stretch to make then.

Matthew
2007-08-03, 01:13 AM
Well, yes, when one successful stab with a sword can render you dead, you tend to be a bit careful approaching someone who's got one :smile:

That's really the crux of the issue, though - in real combat, someone will tend to be somewhat careful approaching someone with a longer weapon (although, as you say, if they're armoured enough to weather it they might not care so much), but in D&D that's certainly not the case. Even an AoO isn't really sufficient deterrent.

Sure. Still, a Goblin or Orc is pretty much in the same situation as somebody in real life, but D&D tends to override any sense of self preservation in favour of a 'fight to the death' mentality.

Even so, my main beef with introducing an AoO for entering Close Quarters is that it leads directly to a Feat that negates that penalty. I would rather just cut out the middle man and have combatants rely on Readied Actions and Reach Weapons to Attack.


Which is why I can't say I like this suggestion too much; it tips the balance too far the other way. Once dagger-guy gets into range - which he almost certainly will, since one sword thrust isn't enough to put him down - the advantage shifts to him for the rest of the combat, and the question becomes 'why would anyone use a weapon larger than a dagger?' instead of 'why would anyone use a weapon smaller than a sword?' I'm not sure that the lower damage of a dagger is enough to offset a -4 penalty to hit for the sword-wielder.

I like it in principle, though; I just think it ends up throwing things too far in the other direction. I haven't play-tested it or anything, though; I could be wrong.

As Brian explains, all this really does is force opponents to move from the square they currently occupy, in whatever direction. The most likely result being 'Push Backs'.


Unless I misread something, it's very easy for sword-guy (um... not the poster here by that name, any person using a sword, which i guess could include him) to take a step back and reestablish the 5ft range, attacking without penalty. Basically, in this sort of one-on-one fight you're moving 5ft backwards every round. The dagger-guy is pressing the advantage, which doesn't seem quite right; I'm not saying he can't win, but it seems odd for him to be able to be so aggressive, so easily, and not get smacked down for it.

Indeed, you are reading the text correctly. Though it's worth noting that a guy with a Long Sword could similarly force his opponent to move (and not just backwards, also to the side). Basically, he attacks his opponent, then uses his 5' Step to close with his opponent, forcing him to move away next turn or suffer a -4 AB Penalty. Of course, stepping into a guy with a Dagger would just be a bit silly, but it also gives a Character a reason to carry a 'Light' back up weapon to use against opponents who use this tactic.


I like the idea of the small, quick guy with the little weapons running in and stabbing the giant half-orc with and axe so big he can't fight back, but it seems too complicated (to me, at least) to implement it for everyone all the time.

You are of course right that this is yet another complication for combat, it just depends whether you like it enough to integrate it.


Also, balance-wise (though I'll be the first to admit I'm no master of determining balance), it seems to give a big advantage to someone who's running around with daggers or something. If he can just stay close (e.g., ready actions to five-foot step if his opponent steps back), he'll win the fight because the other guy will never be able to succeed at hitting as well as his quicker brethren.

If I get what you are saying, you are proposing that a Character could use his Standard Action to Ready an Action to follow up every round. That wouldn't work because he needs the Standard Action to be able to Attack and cannot take two 5' Steps during a Round (which he would need to get into Close quarters with a Character making a 5' Step backwards)


Personally, I think you could make this a feat (or feat chain with 2-3 feats), or (my personal preference) a Prestige Class. I think that would be best - it makes sure that you don't have everyone doing it, it fills a specific niche (i.e., a combatant who gets in close to his enemy in order to keep from getting hit but to do more damage), and it would be pretty easy to make. Personally, I'd make it easy for rogue- and swashbuckler-type builds to qualify, and probably continue with the idea that you're probably going to use daggers (so perhaps some synergy with Invisible Blade or things like that).

Yeah, I certainly considered the possibility, but eventually I rejected it because I want this to be available to all. Of course, there's nothing stopping you making these into Feats/Prestige Class features for your game.

Yakk: I think that would be more complicated than what I am here proposing and a little too much for what I am trying to achieve.

Main Post Updated

Any more thoughts about this?