Why doesn't the 5' step provoke AoO?

[Nebulous]

If you want more realism with your combat, and also fiddle with the 5' rule, then check out the Game of Thrones combat system. AoO are completely removed, and replaced by detailed called shots. You can't just take a 5' step to shoot a bow, you actually have to withdraw up to your base move. Armor offers damage reduction, shields offer a huge defense bonus, and you have to take special feats to get the bonus for Str to weapon damage (but you can also take a feat to offer bonus from every other ability score to attack and defense).

The system is very detailed, including Shock Value (very very low massive damage threshhold) severe wounds, fatigue, and all the other stuff that makes real world combat relatively unpleasant.

If that's your bag. From what i've seen, and experienced, the visceral, loose DnD combat is more epic, free wheeling, and fun from the point of view that you can fight a lot because it's fun. Not debilitating and likely fatal off the bat.

 

[Thanee]

No one has trouble with the mage having to stand still....

But when it is the mages turn, and he wants to move *only 5'*, it is 'unrealistic'....

This particular scenario is completely covered in the proposed house rule I had posted above.

If the fighter charges in, and the mage then backs off, the fighter will not be able to follow-up.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Cabled]

Combat Reflexes

Also if 5' steps provoked AoO's, prepare to see almost every front liner taking the Combat Reflexes feat and having the Dex to utilize it. This will in turn lead to a bogging down of combat as 50 AoO's take place each turn (an exaggeration, but you get my point). The alternative is that nobody ever moves so as not to provoke the "AoO storm", but that's at least as boring as the "same tactic every time" scenario you talked about in the first handful of posts.

Picture this..character B1 is flanked by attackers A1 and A2. He takes a 5' step laterally to get out of the flank, and draws 2 attacks of opportunity, one from each attacker. Since he is still only 5' away, just not between them anymore, when he tries to drink a potion, use a wand, do almost *anything* to heal from getting beat on, the attackers are presented with a different opportunity, and thanks to thier combat reflexes feats, poor B1 is subjext to two more attacks of opportunity. Then when A1 and A2 take thier 5' steps to re-establish flanking, each of them is subjext to an AoO from B1, thanks to his combat reflexes feat. At the higher end game, where the hitters almost never miss thanks to brilliant energy weapons and massive BaB's, expect very short and brutal fights, because what you're effectively doing is giving people quite a few more attacks at thier full BaB. In fact, I'm going to wager that in an environment where this is "natural law", any race without a high dexterity and combat reflexes would have died out long ago, because having a 5' step provoke AoO's removes the "duck and dodge" effect of combat. You've seen those specials on Animal Planet where one lion chases some deer towards another lion waiting in the grass, and at the last minute the deer seem them and take a leap to the side? Well, the lions were flanking that deer, and it jumped to the side to get out of it. Now the lions get extra swings at the deer.

ON another note, since AoO's technically interrupt the action that provokes them, now the 5' step has become interruptible. Expect players to flock to flails, spiked chains, and anything else with a trip attack, and expect them to become very good at it. Because that's how players are

The more I have thought about it, the more I think the reason for a 5' step not provoking an AoO is that it's just too fast. It really is just one big step with a couple foot shuffles on each end. Making it provoke an AoO really seems to imply that the attacker knows where the 5' stepper is stepping before he actually does it. In one on one combat, it's possible to read your adversary that way, and I suppose you could come up with something..sense motive or something..to do that. But in a combat situation where there are two orcs in front of you, some guy behind you thrusting over your shoulder with a polearm, an ogre with a club on your right, between you and your dwarven buddy, and *somewhere* you hear the words of a spell being cast, I just don't think you'd have the time to devote that much attention to one foe.

 

[Mirage_Patrick]

This particular scenario is completely covered in the proposed house rule I had posted above.

If the fighter charges in, and the mage then backs off, the fighter will not be able to follow-up.

I think the point was...why cannot the mage backup while the fighter is charging so that the fighter's attack never happens

 

[Warbringer]

Why not? Ever done any full contact boxing or martial arts? When you are thinking of the best way to protect yourself and also trying to hurt someone else, you don't necessarily expect them to suddenly step out of immediate threat range. You are usually looking for them to try and hurt you.

Yes, three black belts, and trust me, people move in and out of strike range all the time. And if you leave a strike zone unprepared, you'll get floored, usually from a round house or flying front kick.

Consider. In a fight, if you stopped to answer a cell phone, you'll get your face caved in, 5 ft separation or not.

So, it's a game mechanic for a specific reason, noted above. Personally, there should have been a better game mechanic, or maybe no mechanic. Stepping back and drawing a gun or wand shouldn't draw an AOO, stepping back and spellcasting...slap.

In 2e we used to play with a 10 second round. Initiative was d10, d4 for spellcasters. Subtract dex, add segments for spell, add 1 sec for each 5 foot travelled (for 30' move).

In this, casting became a simple matter of can I get the spell of before he reaches me. No special rule.

Basic difference: combat rounds are not turned based, but time based

 

[ForceUser]

I think that D&D's combat system, as in previous editions, is intentionally abstract, and anyone who wants to apply realism to the mechanics is ultimately going to get frustrated. I think what's more important is this: it is a robust conflict-resolution system with a core mechanic that has rock-solid internal consistency. Perhaps it is not realistic, but I would argue that it is logical within its restrictions. While I don't give much regard to those that argue the system needs to be changed to reflect greater realism, I do sympathize with those who say the system should be made simpler.

Original Poster: you should look into True20. It is a d20-lite mechanic that eschews 5-foot steps, attacks of opportunity, and iterative attacks per round. It is a cleaner, simpler version of the mechanic, and I've heard a lot of good things about it. If your main concern is realism, though, I submit that you're playing the wrong RPG.

 

[dcollins]

House Rule:...

Just for argument sake, I think a more elegant House Rule would be something like:

House Rule
If a 5 ft. step takes a character out of contact with an enemy, the enemy has the option of an immediate, free 5 ft. step to maintain contact.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

personally I dont find AoO realistic in the slightest bit in the first place so the concept of a way to avoid an AoO being unrealistic seems flawed from the start to me.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Add another voice to the "it's a huge change" choir. Even with all the modified suggestions that have shown up in this thread, reducing the ability to take 5' steps to avoid AoOs is a huge alteration. Besides the fact that it now gives fighter-types a big edge over pure casters, it now makes certain builds of fighter much stronger.

Take a good high-DEX utility fighter (I'd suggest a Psychic Warrior); give him a reach weapon. Take Stand Still (on an AoO, you can choose to replace your damage with an attack that forces the target to make a Reflex save, DC 10+damage; failure ends the target's movement), which isn't even a Psionic feat any more. (Or, take Improved Trip or something. Doesn't matter.) One of my main 3E characters was this build, so I know an AoO-oriented party member comes in handy.

Now, stand between the enemies and the casters. In the old rules, an enemy who entered my area and was immobilized could wait a turn, then safely 5' step into my adjacent "blind spot" to hit me; with these changes, that's not an option, even under Thanee's version (since it's leaving a threatened area), so he can't reach me to hit me. And of course he can't leave my threatened area to reach the casters; every time he tries, I AoO him to immobilize again, and he loses a turn of movement. So unless the enemy has Tumble or a high Reflex save, which tend to go together, or a huge AC (and with no need for Power Attack that's not a problem)... he'll never move again, and my team will rip him apart.

So, while you might say that this change favors the fighters, what it REALLY favors are light, fast fighters with abilities that allow them to avoid AoOs, or those with ranged or reach weapons.

 

[General Barron]

Yeesh... I had no idea this little rule was such a Sacred Cow.

personally I dont find AoO realistic in the slightest bit in the first place so the concept of a way to avoid an AoO being unrealistic seems flawed from the start to me.

I think they are a brilliant addition, and they help break up the 'turn based' feeling of combat. If I try to run past you, are you just going to sit there, or are you going to swing at me? Without AoO, you have to sit there dumbly, since it 'isn't your turn'.

Take a good high-DEX utility fighter (I'd suggest a Psychic Warrior); give him a reach weapon....

Well, first of all, you forgot about the withdraw action, like everyone else. So there is no way that someone would 'never be able to move again'. In your specific scenario, the opponent could either withdraw away from you, and try another tactic (like running around you, or shooting you with a bow if you don't wanna move). Alternatively, he could withdraw TOWARDS you, and end his movement threatening you. Then on your turn, YOU would be the one vulnerable to AoO. If you choose to withdraw as well, then suddenly you aren't doing a very good job of blocking for your wizard friend, are you?

Stepping back and drawing a gun or wand shouldn't draw an AOO, stepping back and spellcasting...slap.

Since he is still only 5' away, just not between them anymore, when he tries to drink a potion, use a wand, do almost *anything* to heal from getting beat on, the attackers are presented with a different opportunity

Drawing a gun or wand normally doesn't provoke AoO. Check your PHB, pg 141. Drawing a weapon = move action, no AoO. Using a magic item other than a potion = standard action, no AoO. Like I said before, this just makes potions less useful in combat. Wands and other magic items are just as good as before.

-----------------------

Anyway, here is a modified HR proposal, designed to limit the problems of "AoO storm", and "no shuffling around opponents in combat":

1) 5' step DOES provoke AoO as normal movement.
2) If a 5 ft. step takes a character out of contact with an enemy, the enemy has the option of an immediate, free 5 ft. step to maintain contact. The enemy cannot take this step if he moved or 5' stepped on his last action.
3) AoO are only provoked when leaving a creature's threat range. Moving from one threatened square to another square threatened by the same creature does NOT provoke AoO.

Thoughts? I'm also still keen on the idea of breaking the round in twain...