Why doesn't the 5' step provoke AoO?

[Krelios]

Eh, I hate to be a hypocrite, but this is a great point that I can't leave be:


You are completely right about this being a wacky situation, and it did slip my mind. So there is one good argument for 5' step. But with the 5' step, once the fighter has been there for a round, you just get round after round of wackyness as the wizard keeps stepping away from the fighter unopposed. So in my mind its 1 wacky round vs 1+ wacky rounds (current system).

I suppose an easy fix to the above problem would be to simply break the round into two pieces. You run thru the initiative count once, and everyone takes either a move action, or a standard action. Then you run thru it again, and everyone takes whichever action they have left (or finishes their full-round action). Next cycle thru is the new round. AoO are only possible if you didn't move on your last action.

So in the above example, the fighter wins initiative, and takes his move action towards the wizard. The wizard then takes his standard action and shoots a lightning bolt at the fighter. No AoO occurs because the fighter moved on his last action. Next, the fighter takes his standard action and attacks the wizard (or he finishes his full-round charge, and attacks).
The wizard then gets his move action. If he moves away from the fighter, he will now suffer an AoO, since the fighter didn't move on his last action. Wizard does nothing with his move action. Fighter goes again, this time on the 2nd round.

Slightly complicates the rules of course, but not too much really, and the gains seem worth it. The only problem is the 5' step messes things up even more in this situation, but in this case I don't see the need for it at all. Well, at this point I'm breaking my own word, and again turning this into a HR post. Sorry... :\

----------

EDIT

Lol... just realized that this thread HAS been moved to the HR forum. Well, in that case, feel free to discuss my above HR as well .

If the wizard takes a 5' step back to cast, the fighter will take a 5' step forward and full attack on his turn. If there's any wackiness its that you have a suicidal mage. He should be taking a withdraw action to run (usually 120' as opposed to the 60' of a fighter in full plate). Then he moves back 30' feet and casts and continues to do that.

 

[Azlan]

Ok, picture a fighter who wants to drink a potion but he's in a fight with an orc with somthing sharp. Not wanting to get poked while he drinks his potion he ducks down and flings some dirt in the orcs face before jumping out of the way, pulling his potion out and shotguning it like a can of Black Label at an ACDC concert. That his how a 5 foot step seems to me at least.

Ducking down to scoop up some dirt to fling at an opponent while you're in his threated area, will provoke an AoO from that opponent.

 

[Kid Socrates]

Now I'm totally confused. Who said anything about removing it? All I was talking about was making it provoke an AoO, like any other movement. You say that you have no problem with "allowing a way to counter" it. Okay, my idea to "counter it" is to make it provoke AoO. Players can still take it if they want, they just have to take a slight risk to do so. How would you 'counter' it?

I like what other people have suggested, being able to follow, but incur an attack of opportunity. Having the five-foot-step incur an AoO is completely not the point of the five-foot-step. It's combat movement. Now, maybe let a five-foot-step have the same effect as Mobility -- it incurs an AoO, but the person moving gets a +4 dodge bonus to AC.

Exactly. The fighter backs up, the orc fails his attack roll, so the fighter drinks the potion unscathed. The only difference is, now there is a chance that the fighter might fail to distract the orc, and instead take a hit. What is wrong with rolling for this?

The fighter backs up, the orc makes his attack roll because first-attack BAB + Strength rolls can outpace Joe Average Fighter, the fighter dies. I, the player of Joe Average Fighter, wonder why I even bought the stupid potion in the first place.

This is starting to turn into a really weird argument. It seems that the complaint is "it will make things harder for the players", because they won't be able to use healing potions without a little bit of risk. Last time I checked, (a) potions aren't the only magic capable of healing, and (b) as the DM, I get to control the difficulty of my encounters. So all I have to do is throw less/weaker monsters at the players, and I'll get the same challenge, except the players (IMO) will have to think harder about what they do in battle. Sounds fine to me.

A) That's true, potions aren't the only magic capable of healing. However, for Joe Average Fighter, they are. And when Barry Cleric is in dire straits, and Joe bought this healing potion at Corneria for when they finally fought Evil McBadGuy, he wants to be able to stay alive on his own in this honest emergency, only now he can't use it because if he tries to move, he'll die because he can't safely move at all. It's taking that option away from the players. Realism be hornswoggled, options are -great-.

Plus, Barry Cleric can't step back on HIS turn and cast Heal on Joe, because Cronius will thock him on the head with his mace and possibly disrupt the spell Joe was counting on because he can't use his potion.

B) I don't think this is something you can fix just by throwing weaker enemies at them. This is a pretty major element of the game, AoO's and how to get around them. 8 less HP and 4 fewer skill points for Evil McBadGuy aren't going to be the differencemaker.

If you're intent on removing the five-foot-step's functionality in dodging AoO's, give something in return to help that player stay alive in his last stand, or that mage stay alive to get that last spell off, or that cleric stay alive to get Heal cast.

The five-foot-step has been how more than one character of mine has bought enough time to win a battle out. That's why I wouldn't get rid of it.

 

[Kid Socrates]

Ducking down to scoop up some dirt to fling at an opponent while you're in his threated area, will provoke an AoO from that opponent.

I think we can let that description be color, unless there's already a system in place for dirt-chucking.

 

[genshou]

RangerWickett proposed a "brilliant 5-foot step change" some time ago, which you can find in this thread. Some of you posted in this thread (looks at Thanee specifically, but everyone could do with a reminder of what we discussed then. In particular, I'd like to just link to my response, so I don't have to repost those quotes.

D&D combat is an abstraction, and I tire of the "realism" debates because it's meant to be an abstract representation of combat. Something abstract can never be realistic, and that's why it's a role-playing game instead of a role-playing realistic combat simulation (RPRCS).

 

[General Barron]

D&D combat is an abstraction, and I tire of the "realism" debates because it's meant to be an abstract representation of combat. Something abstract can never be realistic, and that's why it's a role-playing game instead of a role-playing realistic combat simulation (RPRCS).

This is a faulty argument, IMO. EVERYTHING is an abstraction, unless you are participating in actual combat to the death (even physical combat with practice swords must have abstraction to a degree).

There is no possible way to make a "role-playing realistic combat simulation", or for that matter ANY simulation, without having a certain amount of 'abstraction'. On the flip side, there is no way to make a "role-playing game" that is supposed to represent something in the real world to a certain extent (contrast to Tetris for example), without it being a 'simulation' (since that is the definition of the word).

Using your logic, you might as well roll a single die to determine the outcome of an entire combat. That's abstraction right? But you must have some reason why you would rather bother with all these other rules, just like I have my reason why I would rather change this particular rule.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

So... Have you actually made the change to the 5' step rules in your game? How did you go about it (that is, what is the actual rule you are using?) Did it do what you wanted it to do? Did it alter anything that you did not expect it to alter? What have been your impressions of the rule, so far?

Later
silver

 

[genshou]

Using your logic, you might as well roll a single die to determine the outcome of an entire combat. That's abstraction right? But you must have some reason why you would rather bother with all these other rules, just like I have my reason why I would rather change this particular rule.

Yes, I've determined combats with a single die roll before, in rules-light games. But I think you're missing my point...

"Realistic simulation" isn't always an oxymoron, you know. The definition of realistic according to sense 2 of the word in my Oxford English Dictionary is "representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life", and I don't really think that D&D combat fits the bill. But it does nicely for an abstract representation.

All I'm trying to say is that D&D isn't real, nor is it a realistic simulation. I'm sure we could come up with very realistic rules for waiting for an opportune moment to leap back out of harm's way and cast a spell, including exactly how many milliseconds the caster would have before their foe closed once more, determined by ability scores, encumbrance, and weapon mass and shape. But I prefer something that only takes up a small section of a rulebook and doesn't require me to take several minutes out of my game every time someone wants to take a 5-foot step. Yes, I prefer a rule that is simple enough that it can be used quickly in a variety of situations, even if that rule isn't the best at representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life.

Besides, it's pretty easy to describe combat round-by-round even with 5-foot steps and machine gun archers and spellcasters... instead of imagining a single 5-foot leap backward, imagine that the wizard/archer is stepping back a little at a time, staying right at the edge of the opponent's reach. When he casts a spell, he is too far away for the opponent to kill him immediately, but the action of spellcasting lets his opponent close the distance and attack when the spell is finished.

Remember, somatic components only require one hand, and advancing on someone wielding a quarterstaff has given me a number of bruises from my time with ARMA even when fellow combatants were only using one arm.

 

[General Barron]

I prefer something that only takes up a small section of a rulebook and doesn't require me to take several minutes out of my game every time someone wants to take a 5-foot step.

The changes proposed here are actually quite simple. One of them actually REMOVES words from the rules (5' step provoking AoO as normal), while the other is dead simple (5' step of opportunity). I don't see how those two things are going to take several minutes to figure out...

So if it's a simple change, then all that is left to look at is how it would change the game. I like the idea that in melee you would be better off with a sword than a bow. I like the idea that spellcasters would be vulnerable in melee. I like the idea that potions are riskier to use, and so you have to be careful about whom you pick a fight with one-on-one.

Whether any of that is 'realistic' or not is beside the point; it is the end result that I am after.

So... Have you actually made the change to the 5' step rules in your game? How did you go about it (that is, what is the actual rule you are using?) Did it do what you wanted it to do? Did it alter anything that you did not expect it to alter? What have been your impressions of the rule, so far?

I actually haven't had a chance to play at all, with that darn RL always getting in the way . But I do have lots of experience with 2nd ed combat & tactics rules, which never had the 5' step to begin with (with all the results listed above), and it worked fine.

 

[genshou]

The changes proposed here are actually quite simple. One of them actually REMOVES words from the rules (5' step provoking AoO as normal), while the other is dead simple (5' step of opportunity). I don't see how those two things are going to take several minutes to figure out...

So if it's a simple change, then all that is left to look at is how it would change the game. I like the idea that in melee you would be better off with a sword than a bow. I like the idea that spellcasters would be vulnerable in melee. I like the idea that potions are riskier to use, and so you have to be careful about whom you pick a fight with one-on-one.

Whether any of that is 'realistic' or not is beside the point; it is the end result that I am after.

I'm less opposed to the simple change, but I posted that because things can get out of hand when you really want to start worrying about whether or not someone can step back five feet and have time to cast a standard action spell, assuming you want to consider all factors. Your rules are simpler than the monster that full consideration of all the arguments against "safe" 5-foot steps has produced in this thread, and that's much nicer.

Still... I once played in a game with exactly the simple rules change you propose. I never will again.