5' step, partial actions and haste

[SpikeyFreak]

What if, 15 feet into your normal move, you walk into the readied attack of the invisible enemy, who stabs you and drops you to one hit point with his sword of wounding?

Then you are at deaths door.

You moved in a manner that doesn't allow for another action. You are reatreating in a defensive manner so that you don't get attacked while you do it. When you do that, you can't drink a potion afterwards because you don't have time.

You've declared a double-move action, so you can't attack him. But a double-move can consist of a move and an MEA, so you could drink your potion of CLW.

But that means that your move provoked an AoO from the rogue.

The precedent for changing your action based on consequences of the first part of that action exists in the rules - if you hit someone once, you can decide whether you're making a standard attack or a full attack based on whether or not they fall down.

-Hyp.

Yes, but no where in the rules does it say that you can decide to do something that changes the past, which is exaclty what you are trying to do.

--Spi.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yes, but no where in the rules does it say that you can decide to do something that changes the past, which is exaclty what you are trying to do.

I'm convinced

Sorry, Tony

-Hyp.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

I'm convinced

Sorry, Tony

-Hyp.

Wow, you mean someone's mind was changed? Amazing!

--Happy Spikey

 

[Hypersmurf]

Wow, you mean someone's mind was changed? Amazing!

Heh

I must admit, I was somewhat fence-sitting on this issue, but you did manage to drag me off.

-Hyp.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm convinced

Sorry, Tony

-Hyp.

No need to apologize. If you want to use declared actions instead of putting up with retroactive AoOs, I certainly don't mind.

I did come up with a 'Withdraw' action, once, to solve the problem - but it only solves it for double-moves, and, as has been demonstrated here, that's not the only place it pops up. So, I'll probably just live with it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No need to apologize. If you want to use declared actions instead of putting up with retroactive AoOs, I certainly don't mind.

I'm curious to know how you'd retroactively handle the situation I described, though.

If you apply the rogue's AoO, and damage the character slightly, then he no longer feels confident about surviving in the corner. Instead he chooses to double-move in the opposite direction towards his cleric for a heal spell. Never goes near the invisible guy, never tries to drink a potion, and thus never provoked an AoO.

So he never lost confidence, so he went for the corner after all.

Past the invisible guy...

-Hyp.

 

[Virago]

Karinsdad said:
If either side could prove their case conclusively, we would not be having this long drawn out discussion. Someone would point to the rules and the other side would not be able to say anything about it.

If only this were true!! What actually happens is that the people on the losing side quickly switch to an "I don't need rules! My way is better!" argument. I've done so myself


Artoomis:

In response to the argument involving the p. 117 quote "if all you move in a round is 5 feet (a 5'-step) then you provoke no AoO." -- I don't buy it.

You wrote:
Somebody actually suggested that you could get two, but the second one would not avoid an AoO. But a move that does not avoid an AoO is NOT a 5-foot move, by definition.

No, the argument is that neither 5 foot step will avoid an AoO, because it's not true that "all your movement in a round is 5 feet."

A hidden assertion in your argument is that a 5' step must always avoid an AoO, or else it can't be taken at all.

Page 117 itself however implies that a 5' step is the same as moving 5 feet, and that there's nothing magical about 5' steps avoiding AoOs, and that the rule on p. 117 is the base rule, by virtue of being more general and presented in the combat summary, and it's the way things really work. Even if it is usually true enough that a 5' step will avoid the AoO.

But then, as has been stated, it's really a matter of deciding just how stupid the PHB writers were so I won't dispute any further . . .

 

[Artoomis]

Artoomis:

In response to the argument involving the p. 117 quote "if all you move in a round is 5 feet (a 5'-step) then you provoke no AoO." -- I don't buy it.

You wrote:
Somebody actually suggested that you could get two, but the second one would not avoid an AoO. But a move that does not avoid an AoO is NOT a 5-foot move, by definition.

No, the argument is that neither 5 foot step will avoid an AoO, because it's not true that "all your movement in a round is 5 feet."

A hidden assertion in your argument is that a 5' step must always avoid an AoO, or else it can't be taken at all.

Page 117 itself however implies that a 5' step is the same as moving 5 feet, and that there's nothing magical about 5' steps avoiding AoOs, and that the rule on p. 117 is the base rule, by virtue of being more general and presented in the combat summary, and it's the way things really work. Even if it is usually true enough that a 5' step will avoid the AoO.

But then, as has been stated, it's really a matter of deciding just how stupid the PHB writers were so I won't dispute any further . . .

I certainly did not mean to impy that you may ONLY take a "5-foot step" if you are avoiding an AoO - that would be silly. Besdies, a 5-foot step is:

A small position adjustment that dopes not count as movement...This movement does not draw an attack of opportunity

From the glossary.

I was merely using the avoiding AoO as one of the primary purposes of a 5-foot step and pointing out page 117 states that you get to avoid a movement AoO if your entire movement for the round is only 5'. This, of course, states that if your entire movement is a round is 5', then that equals a 5-foot move that does not count as a move in combat.

Your point about the about the intelligence of the PHB writers is actually beside the point - at least for me. For me, the question is "what is the rule?" Not "what should the rule be?"

That's the question I, at least, am trying to answer. An I've answered it, using three different quotes from the PHB that deal directly with 5-foot steps.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm curious to know how you'd retroactively handle the situation I described, though.

Usually, you just point out that the AoO would've happened, and the player comes up with something else to do.... if the player insists on changing his action, you resolve the AoO. If, after the AoO is resolved, he decides to just double-move, tough.

 

[Caliban]

This is off our topic, but was so misleading that I had to chime in on it.

Ok, go ahead.

WHAT?!? Where did THAT come from?

The ATTACK ACTION (from page 122) is an ACTION. How can you possibly say that an individual attack is NOT an action?

[/b]

Yes, the ATTACK ACTION is a standard action. It allows you to make one attack. However, the attack it self is not an action. An attack it just one of the things you can use an action to do. And if you use the Full Attack action you can even do multiple attacks (and it's still one action, not multiple actions).

Actions can only be done on your own turn. However, you can do "Attacks of Opportunity" on other peoples turns, and that's not an "Attack Action (otherwise you would be able to take a 5' step on an AoO ). Expert Tactician, Cleave, and Speed Weapons grant an extra attacks, not extra actions.

Note: "conditions," plural. So, while I agree you need to trigger off a specific action, it appears also that you do not have to be overly specific because you may choose more than one action as your trigger.

Now, of course, only one action actually triggers the partial action - one that meets the "conditions" you declared.

Which is exactly what I said. I wasn't discussing the conditions which further defined the action, just the action itself.

You can Ready an Action to "Attack whoever comes through the door", then add the condition "if I don't recognize them".

You can only have one type of action as the trigger for your readied action. You can one or more conditional modifiers to further define that action, as you wish.