5' step, partial actions and haste

[Artoomis]

I agree 100%.

Let me explain why this is prohibitive.

If the cleric takes his 5' step and doesn't provoke an AoO at the time, then casts hold person on the fighter and it works, then makes another 5' step then the first 5' step provoking an AoO could cause the cleric to be tripped or killed, in which case the cleric wouldn't have been able to cast the hold person and then want to move again, which would mean the AoO DIDN'T provoke an AoO, and the cleric is now able to cast the spell.......

See what I'm getting at? Retroactive AoOs would be the worst thing ever introduced into the rules of D&D.

--Recursion Spikey

But it's much easier than that, and this applies equally well for hasted or non-hasted actions.

Simply put, a 5'-step (or minor position adjustment, if you like) is an exception to the no declared actions - if you want a 5'-step, you have to declare that this move is your only move for the round.

All weird problems resolved.

If you don't do this, odd things involving retroactive adjustments to actions can, and will, happen.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Artoomis, that is a TERRIBLE way to handle it!

So if you want to move out of a threatened area and do something else, you have declare what you are going to do for the next 6 seconds and you can't change it?

If I were a player and you made me declare my entire round like that, just because I was hasted, I would be incredibly frustrated.

There is a rule in the PHB that says that you can take your first attack and the decide if you want to continue with a full-attack action. This just completely flies in the face of that.

Not to mention that really screws over haste. Which I guess may not be a bad thing, but the part about not letting the player change his mind is just rediculous.

--Flabbergasted Spikey

 

[Artoomis]

Artoomis, that is a TERRIBLE way to handle it!

So if you want to move out of a threatened area and do something else, you have declare what you are going to do for the next 6 seconds and you can't change it?

If I were a player and you made me declare my entire round like that, just because I was hasted, I would be incredibly frustrated.

There is a rule in the PHB that says that you can take your first attack and the decide if you want to continue with a full-attack action. This just completely flies in the face of that.

Not to mention that really screws over haste. Which I guess may not be a bad thing, but the part about not letting the player change his mind is just rediculous.

--Flabbergasted Spikey

Ah, but 5'-step is ONLY allowed if it is the ONLY movement for the round.

Without causing retroactive changes to your actions, how would you handle it (forget haste - the problem exists for a "reguar" round).

 

[rhammer2]

Correct, the priest locks his movement with the first 5' move. If he does this he can not take any other movement in the round. This is how I have been running hasted combat since it became available to the characters.

Ah, but 5'-step is ONLY allowed if it is the ONLY movement for the round.

Without causing retroactive changes to your actions, how would you handle it (forget haste - the problem exists for a "reguar" round).

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Ah, but 5'-step is ONLY allowed if it is the ONLY movement for the round.

Without causing retroactive changes to your actions, how would you handle it (forget haste - the problem exists for a "reguar" round).

It's not a problem in a regular round. You say "I'm going to take a 5' step and then do this." and their turn is over. Why is that difficult?

I don't see why it is such a big deal to have the action in the haste part of the turn act like it is a different round. It is so much simpler that way and it just makes more sense.

--Tired Spikey

 

[Artoomis]

It's not a problem in a regular round. You say "I'm going to take a 5' step and then do this." and their turn is over. Why is that difficult?

I don't see why it is such a big deal to have the action in the haste part of the turn act like it is a different round. It is so much simpler that way and it just makes more sense.

--Tired Spikey

Why not allow an extra 5'-step?

Well, because Haste is powerful enough as it is, without allowing it to ALSO let the spell caster ALWAYS stay out of Full Attack range.

And because the rules only allow a POSSIBLE interpretation that a 5' step should be allowed with an ADDITIONAL partial action.

And because, when there is doubt as to a rules interpretation that significantly improves an ALREADY powerful spell, I'd lean against allowing it. Haste already favors the spell caster tremendously, allowing an extra 5' step just makes it favor teh spell caster even more.

And because the FAQ says you only get one 5'-step per round.

And, finally, because the intent seems, to me at least, to be to allow only one 5' minor adjustment per round regardless of how many actions you might be able to stack up in a round.

Now, what about a regular round? You say what is so difficult about saying, "I'm going to take a 5'-step and do this?" Nothing. Easy as pie. Apply that to every round, regardless of how many actions you might have, and your problem is totally solved. Simple, eh?

 

[KarinsDad]

Correct, the priest locks his movement with the first 5' move. If he does this he can not take any other movement in the round. This is how I have been running hasted combat since it became available to the characters.

This seems EXTREMELY limiting.

I am moving faster than anyone else, but I have this restriction which is games mechanic in nature only, which prevents me from moving faster than anyone else.

Hmmmm.


I am hasted. I use a standard action to move back 5 feet and cast.

I have used up an entire standard action to do this (even though I could have done the same thing with a partial action).

Now, suddenly, my partial action is limited in that I cannot use it for movement (or vice versa if I used my partial action first).


Are you going to add this rule to charge as well?

I move 25 feet in a straight line while hasted and charge my opponent.

Now, since I have charged, I can only continue to move with my partial action in the same direction because charging requires that all movement in the round be in a straight line.


This is so silly.

Why create all of these rules questions and problems and hassles and confusions?


If you segregate out each action as a separate entity within the round where you can do ANY action that is allowed within that type of action (i.e. partial action limits you to no full round attack, etc.), then it solves all of the problems without allowing new ones to creep in (at least that I can think of).

 

[Artoomis]

This seems EXTREMELY limiting.

I am moving faster than anyone else, but I have this restriction which is games mechanic in nature only, which prevents me from moving faster than anyone else.

Hmmmm.


I am hasted. I use a standard action to move back 5 feet and cast.

I have used up an entire standard action to do this (even though I could have done the same thing with a partial action).

Now, suddenly, my partial action is limited in that I cannot use it for movement (or vice versa if I used my partial action first).


Are you going to add this rule to charge as well?

I move 25 feet in a straight line while hasted and charge my opponent.

Now, since I have charged, I can only continue to move with my partial action in the same direction because charging requires that all movement in the round be in a straight line.


This is so silly.

Why create all of these rules questions and problems and hassles and confusions?


If you segregate out each action as a separate entity within the round where you can do ANY action that is allowed within that type of action (i.e. partial action limits you to no full round attack, etc.), then it solves all of the problems without allowing new ones to creep in (at least that I can think of).

I think you are forgetting (or choosing to ignore) two things:

1. The FAQ clearly addressed this and clarified the rule.

2. The 5-foot step is a minor positional adjustment and not really movement (no AoO, you can still do a Full Round Action, etc.) It really has NOTHING whatsoever to do with how fast you move, an is only connected to movement in that if you move otherwise, you don't get a free minor adjustment as well.

Charge is a totally seperate issue and should not be debated in this thread.

 

[KarinsDad]

Why not allow an extra 5'-step?

Actually, having an extra 5' step per round is the least of the problems presented here and does not address the true multi-action Haste issues. It's almost irrelevent to the conversation (except with regard to whether it can or cannot be done).

Example 1:

I use a partial action and a 5' step to back up and cast a spell.
I use a standard action and a 30' step to back up and cast a second spell.

As per this example, you are not taking a second 5' adjustment step (since you are not doing a full round action). So, the extra 5' step does not come into play here.

Here, the larger issue is whether the 5' step results in an AoO due to the 30' movement in the standard action.

Example 2:

I use a partial action and partial charge 30' forward and attack.
I use a standard action and a 5' step to back up and cast a spell.

As per this example, again you are not taking a second 5' adjustment step. So again, the extra 5' step does not come into play here.

Here, the larger issue is whether the character can change his direction after charging.


There are a lot of "you can only do this once per round" type of rules that cause problems and conflict in resolution when you bring Haste into the equation.

The resulting questions from these rules are hard to answer if you do not segregate out each individual action.

It is just a side effect of segregating out each individual action that a second 5' step would be allowed and would conflict with the FAQ.

So, the easiest solution to solve all 3 problems (Example 1, Example 2, and the original example of move back and drink potion, move forward and full round attack) is to segregate out each individual action and change these types of rules from once per round to once per action (e.g. one 5' step per round to one 5' step per action, or must charge in the same direction for the entire action as opposed to the entire round).

As a side note, the reason one 5' step per action might still be a viable rule is for things like Shot on the Run where a character could move 5' and fire (normally not provoking an AoO), and then move 5' back. The one 5' step per action rule would then enforce an AoO. Of course, this still gets into the retroactive question, but there is no way around it for any ability (Hasted or Shot on the Run) which allows movement, action, and movement within a round unless you consider the latter movement to not affect AoO rules on the earlier movement. It's obvious that the designers did not take these types of things into account. But, that is understandable since it is difficult to anticipate any scenario with these types of unusual conditions (i.e. move, action, move).

 

[Artoomis]

Example 1:

I use a partial action and a 5' step to back up and cast a spell.
I use a standard action and a 30' step to back up and cast a second spell.

As per this example, you are not taking a second 5' adjustment step (since you are not doing a full round action). So, the extra 5' step does not come into play here.

Here, the larger issue is whether the 5' step results in an AoO due to the 30' movement in the standard action.

Example 2:

I use a partial action and partial charge 30' forward and attack.
I use a standard action and a 5' step to back up and cast a spell.

As per this example, again you are not taking a second 5' adjustment step. So again, the extra 5' step does not come into play here.

If you do not allow an extra 5'- step than you are ALSO not allowing ANY other movement if you take a 5' step - the two scenarios you proposed above would be illegal.

In scenario 1, you could not take the 30' move because you took a 5'-step already this round.

in scenarios 2, you could not take the 5'-step because you already moved.

Simplicity itself. And, consistent with extisting rules for movement in a round to boot.

The charging question is a good one for another thread. It revolves around the question of whether all movement for the ROUND must be in a straight line, or all movement during the Charge. Feel free to start a seperate discussion on this, if you like.