tomBitonti
Adventurer
While thinking about what I don't like about 4E, I realized that a part of what I don't like are elements of 3.0E/3.5E that were preserved in 4E, and that I really didn't like them in 3.oE / 3.5E in the first place.
I was considering cyclic initiative, aoo's, and the 5' step. I grant that these mechanics do streamline combat. But, as I was thinking, they do so by limiting options and by distorting the narrative view of what is happening.
A 5' step allows movement while performing other actions. I have mostly considered this to be a gradual movement that occurs simultaneous with the action.
With that definition, consider what happens if I cast a spell while fighting. I step back (with a 5' step) and cast the spell safely. My spell is not an instant, so the movement was necessary to avoid an attack of opportunity.
I can see the movement as being reasonable, but not that the opponent would not press the attack and deprive me of the safe moment to cast the spell.
After further conderation, that led me to the following idea: When taking a 5' step, one is condered to occupy both squares. However, you gain a +4 AC bonus to AOO's against you for any actions taken in the same turn as the 5' step.
That satisfies my sense of making the mechanic make sense. That also opens several options:
*) Taking a quick step back (via an initiative check), allowing the movement and action before the opponent can react.
*) Feinting the opponent (via a bluff check), fooling the opponent into thinking that you are moving to a different location.
*) Threatening the opponent (via an intimidate check), getting them on guard while you step back.
That also brings up an option:
*) Opponents who threaten you may, in their initiative order, choose to follow you by making a 5' step. On their next turn, they are required to move at least that much to start their action.
I was considering cyclic initiative, aoo's, and the 5' step. I grant that these mechanics do streamline combat. But, as I was thinking, they do so by limiting options and by distorting the narrative view of what is happening.
A 5' step allows movement while performing other actions. I have mostly considered this to be a gradual movement that occurs simultaneous with the action.
With that definition, consider what happens if I cast a spell while fighting. I step back (with a 5' step) and cast the spell safely. My spell is not an instant, so the movement was necessary to avoid an attack of opportunity.
I can see the movement as being reasonable, but not that the opponent would not press the attack and deprive me of the safe moment to cast the spell.
After further conderation, that led me to the following idea: When taking a 5' step, one is condered to occupy both squares. However, you gain a +4 AC bonus to AOO's against you for any actions taken in the same turn as the 5' step.
That satisfies my sense of making the mechanic make sense. That also opens several options:
*) Taking a quick step back (via an initiative check), allowing the movement and action before the opponent can react.
*) Feinting the opponent (via a bluff check), fooling the opponent into thinking that you are moving to a different location.
*) Threatening the opponent (via an intimidate check), getting them on guard while you step back.
That also brings up an option:
*) Opponents who threaten you may, in their initiative order, choose to follow you by making a 5' step. On their next turn, they are required to move at least that much to start their action.
