5' step, partial actions and haste

[KarinsDad]

I really do believe allowing 2 5' steps is too powerful for a mere 3rd level spell.

It probably isn't much of a problem at lower levels. However, at higher levels, where my group at least is playing a lot of the time now, the difference between winning and losing a fight often comes down to how many full attacks the really powerful front-line fighters get. Allowing 2 5' steps makes them a LOT more powerful.

I think you are overreacting.

A Hasted Fighter can already use his partial action to partial charge 20 or 30 feet (depending) and then do a full round attack.

An extra 5 feet once in a while would rarely make a big difference. In fact, a lot of players would probably be unaware that they could even do that (if the rule was that way).

Having a 5 foot move with a partial and then moving with your standard action is really more helpful for spell casters. But, at high level where you are concerned, a lot of spell casters already have a lot of ways to avoid combat.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Even the one AoO per round rule can be one AoO per “overall action” since once you use up either your partial or normal action when hasted, it would reset. So, it would be very difficult to get two AoOs in during a round for someone without Combat Reflexes. Yes, some bizarre rare set of circumstances like you trying to grapple on your first action an unarmed person who tries to punch you in return with an AoO, could result in you getting an AoO, and then you could have a normal AoO later, but who cares? It would be extremely rare.

Hmm. I can see it coming up more often than that...

Bob is Hasted, but his initiative comes after Fred. Neither are flat-footed. Fred's cohort Joe comes later in the round.

Fred goes to cast a spell - Bob gets an AoO. Bob takes a full attack on Fred with his "normal" action, - his AoO resets since he's just taken "any form of action" - then using his Hasted Partial action readies an partial charge on Fred if he tries to move away.

Joe tries to move past Bob to get away, but falls victim to Bob's AoO.

New round - Fred does indeed try to move away to cast a spell. Bob's Readied action triggers, and he partial-charges Fred. His AoO resets, since he just took an action. Fred decides to cast anyway... and takes another AoO.

Sure, it's contrived, but it's an example. The Ready action is where your "bizarre rare set of circumstances" theory falls down, because it allows the "normal" action and the "hasted" action to occur at different places in the round, allowing far more chance of multiple AoOs being provoked.

The major issue is how to come up with a set of rules that are consistent for both Hasted and non-Hasted situations. Hence, the "per overall action" concept which resolves those.

Except for Quicken Spell, of course. If consistency is your primary goal, balance shouldn't be an overriding factor, surely?

-Hyp.

 

[Virago]

Deja vu.

One very important facet of "segregating" actions like what Karinsdad is suggesting comes up with the issue of Ready actions.

Is the partial action prepared by a Ready segregated from the standard action which you took to Ready it? After all, it's a full-fledged partial action, just like the one you receive with haste.

If you rule that the partial readied action is not "part of" your turn with respect to the various rules, then you are allowing (move+ready, ... , attack + 5' step). Which really changes the dynamics of casting spells in combat, and really makes doing a normal attack without a Ready sort of pointless if your DM allows triggers such as "I attack when he moves or attacks." This also prevents double-moves to escape combat.

So, to run a "segregated action" you have to decide how you're going to treat Readied actions; it's more important than balancing haste.

 

[KarinsDad]

Deja vu.

One very important facet of "segregating" actions like what Karinsdad is suggesting comes up with the issue of Ready actions.

Is the partial action prepared by a Ready segregated from the standard action which you took to Ready it? After all, it's a full-fledged partial action, just like the one you receive with haste.

No, it is not segregated. All part of the same action, the standard action. The partial action aspect of it just limits what you can do with it.

So, if you move on your initiative with your movement action and declare a ready action, the partial for that ready action cannot include a 5' foot step. If you do not move, it usually can.

So, to run a "segregated action" you have to decide how you're going to treat Readied actions; it's more important than balancing haste.

I agree that you have to make sure it doesn't create new problems.

I do not think it does, but that's why we discuss these things.

 

[Artoomis]

One more point against the logic of KarinsDad re: faster movement for haste should get you the extra 5'-step.

I understand (but don't agree with) your logic. Extending one part of your logic, wouldn't you then let faster creaures have a 10'-step (or more)? Or larger creatures? It makes sense, right?

I wouldn't, among other things it violates the KISS (Keep it Simply, Stupid) principle. But we'll never agree on this, it seems, so I'll just let it go now... (well, probabaly).

 

[KarinsDad]

Hmm. I can see it coming up more often than that...

...

Sure, it's contrived, but it's an example. The Ready action is where your "bizarre rare set of circumstances" theory falls down, because it allows the "normal" action and the "hasted" action to occur at different places in the round, allowing far more chance of multiple AoOs being provoked.

Yes, not only is it contrived, but you started it out by saying "Hmm. I can see it coming up more often than that...".

Well, which is it? Contrived or frequent?

For example, why does Fred not back up 5 feet before casting his first spell? Yes, he could be backed into a corner or surrounded in some circumstances, but ...

And, if someone continued to ready actions, they could conceivably get an extra AoO per round. But, if those ready actions do not occur, they also lose an action doing that. So yes, they might occassionally get two AoOs, but usually they will get none and often, their readied actions will also not occur.

Do you really consider this to be a frequent situation?

I think you are REALLY stretching on this.

Except for Quicken Spell, of course. If consistency is your primary goal, balance shouldn't be an overriding factor, surely?

Funny guy.

 

[KarinsDad]

I understand (but don't agree with) your logic. Extending one part of your logic, wouldn't you then let faster creaures have a 10'-step (or more)? Or larger creatures? It makes sense, right?

Yup. Even tried to do that once. But, I couldn't find a KISS solution for it, so I left it alone.

I wouldn't, among other things it violates the KISS (Keep it Simply, Stupid) principle. But we'll never agree on this, it seems, so I'll just let it go now... (well, probabaly).

Are you saying that once per round is easy and once per action is complex?

There are a lot of non-simple rules in DND. I just prefer that they be consistent where possible.

Plus, I submit that if the rule would have been as I suggest here in the first place, that we would not even be having this discussion and you would not be opposed to it. It would be the rule and you would probably just accept it.

 

[Artoomis]

Are you saying that once per round is easy and once per action is complex?

There are a lot of non-simple rules in DND. I just prefer that they be consistent where possible.

Plus, I submit that if the rule would have been as I suggest here in the first place, that we would not even be having this discussion and you would not be opposed to it. It would be the rule and you would probably just accept it.

Guilty as charged. If your way was the rule I would at least defend it as being the rule. I try (often without success) to stay away form the why of the rules when trying to fgre out what the rule actually is - I save the why for house rule discussions (well, mostly, anyway).

My goals are:

Understand what the published, official rule is for a particular situation.

Use intent of the rules, if possible, to clear up things that are not unclear.

Look hard at balance issues and the "why" of a rule to see if a house rule looks reasionable.

With that in mind, my input to "rules" dicsussions is usually to try and figure out how the rules work [as written, with my own opinions as to how to "fill in the blanks" when the rules are not clear. I save the "how should the rules work" stuff for house rules (mostly).

 

[Magnus]

Plus, I submit that if the rule would have been as I suggest here in the first place, that we would not even be having this discussion and you would not be opposed to it. It would be the rule and you would probably just accept it.

wouldn't that same logic work is the other POV was the rule? ... then again as i understand it, not having actually read the FAQ myself, it is the rule but it isn't accepted. ah well moot post i guess

 

[IanB]

I think you are overreacting.

A Hasted Fighter can already use his partial action to partial charge 20 or 30 feet (depending) and then do a full round attack.

An extra 5 feet once in a while would rarely make a big difference. In fact, a lot of players would probably be unaware that they could even do that (if the rule was that way).

Having a 5 foot move with a partial and then moving with your standard action is really more helpful for spell casters. But, at high level where you are concerned, a lot of spell casters already have a lot of ways to avoid combat.

I don't really think I'm overreacting, if only because I've played with the rule allowing two 5' steps when hasted, and it made the fighters, and especially the polymorphed ranger, much nastier. The combination of reach with 2 steps means that a character can start out right next to someone, full attack them, get an attack from their partial action, and end up 10 feet away, forcing yet another attack when the foe tries to close the next round. (Unless they too are hasted... ) True, the partial charge example you give can happen even without restricting the extra step, but at least that way the character is making a choice with a consequence, as he has to take the -2 to his AC until his next round. You say in practice it is better for the spell casters, but my personal experience at least has been different - the spell casters already have little trouble staying out of melee, and while the extra spell per round can be nasty, I would argue that a full round attack from a 16th+ level fighter is competitive.


Granted, this was a 16th level party, and maybe in many games where the levels rarely get that high, allowing the 2 steps wouldn't be too bad.