5' step, partial actions and haste

[chilibean]

If the max allowable step scaled with movement rate, like logic would tell you it should, it might solve the issue.

I guess it was for game balance and simplicity that the 5' step doesn't scale with movement rate.

20th level monks with boots of striding and springing might start getting out of hand if it did scale ...

 

[Hypersmurf]

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?

Do you really consider this to be a frequent situation?

I think you are REALLY stretching on this.

The example was contrived. But it can represent a far wider variety of circumstances than "bizarre and rare". Especially once you introduce reach weapons and larger numbers of opponents into it.

For someone to make an unarmed AoO between two consecutive actions - sure, that's hardly ever going to happen. For more than one AoO to be provoked in one round between two non-consecutive actions - that's going to happen. Maybe not "frequently" (I never used the word) - but more often than "bizarre and rare".

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Yup. That was what I could see happening.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

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... ).

I must be missing something in your example.

Full Round Attack, Partial Attack, move 5 feet. 10 feet away as you state (this must be a Spiked Chain or the Ranger is polymorphed into a large creature since you are attacking from 5 feet).

The foe then moves 5 feet closer, does his full round attack. You get no AoO since he only moved 5 feet.


With a normal reach weapon, you could be 5 feet away, back away 5 feet and get both your full round and your partial, then move another 5 feet away.

You would be 15 feet away and if he closes, you would get an AoO.


But, I see little problem with this. You are hasted. He is not. Even without this rule and with or without reach weapons, you could disarm him or trip him with your partial (moving 5 feet away first if you have a reach weapon), then you could full round attack him.

His options are extremely limited at this point. Not much different. Even in your scenario, what says that he has to come after you. A lot of high level opponents have either spells or missile weapons or reach of their own (you are 15 feet away, he moves in 5 and full round attacks and you get no AoO). A lot of opponents could just fall back (you being 15 feet away, you could not do anything about it) and pelt you from a distance.

The point is that yes, what you suggest could be a good tactic. But, at high level, there are a boatload of good tactics. And, a lot of creatures may or may not be hasted at high level. So, what you suggest is not any more impressive than a lot of other combat tactics that can be done at higher levels. And, you need a spell or item to do it (just like a lot of high level tactics need a spell or item or feat to do it). Compare Haste with your tactic to Improved Invisibility (one level higher) and any combination of weapons/feats. Improved Invisibility generally still kicks Haste's butt in combat until your opponents can see or dispel invisibility, and at those levels, they can usually also dispel your haste.

And, personally, I think that reach weapons could use a little beefing up as it is. Having one more tactic for them is great.


All in all, this can influence the game. But, why should the spell casters be the ones to gain so much from Haste (doubling their spells from 2E) and the combatant types lose so much (they doubled their attack rates and movement in 2E, now they gain 1 attack if they decide to not take the extra movement)?

Balance-wise, this is not really that overwhelming and I still think that you are over emphasizing the power of it. There are a lot of tactics and spells that can overcome this one.

 

[Artoomis]

Consider this quote (I finally pulled out my PHB)

Combat Chapter (Chapter 8)
Actions in Combat heading
Move-Equivalent sub-heading, paragraph 2 (page 121)

If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move for one or more move-equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during or after the acation.

The most important thing about this rule is that it clearly states that you can take one 5-foot step if you move no actual distance in a [round.

The parenthetical language makes it clear that this is a general rule, not some sort of move-equivalent rule only. This is even clearer than the infamous semi-hidden rule in the Heavy Crossbow description, which does not apply to Heavy Crossbows only.

This pretty much does it for me. I don't even see much wiggle room here - a round includes ALL actions in a round - that includes extra partial actions from haste.

Some foks STILL seem to be getting caught up in :

Typically you may make a 5-foot step as part of a partial action.

While that is true, it is also true that:

Usually [aka typically] you don't take a partial action because you elect to, but rather because you are required to.

(It then goes on to discuss the special case of the Haste spell giving you an optional partial action)

To restate: Typically you can take a 5-foot step with a partial action, but a typical partial action is not the one from the Haste spell.

Any doubt I might have had before as to the clarity of the rules is totally wiped away. I now believe the rules are, indeed, pretty clear on this point. (I guess its about time I actually opened up the PHB and read all the rules myself.)

Finally, I repeat my earlier statement that actions that "allow" a 5-foot step are not really "permissive" in that that give you a 5-foot step, but rather they allow you to take one IF you haven't moved otherwise or taken another 5-foot step.

Now I know that some of you think the rule should be different - and I say more power to you, make a house rule that works for you. I am now very satisfied that the rule in the PHB is clear.

edit: Thanks, all, this has been a great debate!

 

[Caliban]

Artoomis, I have referenced that quote several times myself. As you pointed out, it is under the Move Equivalent Action entry.

It is not at the beginning of the combat action section, which would imply that it implies to all actions in combat. It is only found in the entry for a specific action, which to me indicates that it would only apply to that specific action.

Every other action just states whether or not you can take a 5' step while performing that action, MEA's are the only one that has the additional language limiting it to once per round.


That's basically my entire arguement, take it as you will. *shrug*

 

[Artoomis]

Artoomis, I have referenced that quote several times myself. As you pointed out, it is under the Move Equivalent Action entry.

It is not at the beginning of the combat action section, which would imply that it implies to all actions in combat. It is only found in the entry for a specific action, which to me indicates that it would only apply to that specific action.

Every other action just states whether or not you can take a 5' step while performing that action, MEA's are the only one that has the additional language limiting it to once per round.


That's basically my entire arguement, take it as you will. *shrug*

It makes perfect sense they would do it that way - the MEA section is where they are talking about movement and AoOs and the relationship between the two. Makes sense to me.

Or are you now saying that the rules for Ambidexterity and ranged weapons apply only to crossbows, because that is where they are printed?

 

[Tony Vargas]

It seems pretty clear from the rules that you only get to take the coveted 5' step if you take no other movement in the round.

AFAICT, there are two issues clouding this.

1) Is the extra partial action from Haste part of the same round?

2) Wouldn't taking a move /after/ you've 5' stepped cause the 5' step to become part of a regular move, and thus provoke a para-temporal AoO, and isn't that icky?

Second objection first: Yes. Para-temporal AoOs are a fact of life in 3E, and not just because of a 5' step, and not just when Haste is involved. Take something as simple as withdrawing from combat. Make a double move and the first square doesn't count as threatened, simple, no? No. Say you move the first half of that normal move and see, from you new vantage point an enemy that you'd really like to take shot at or cast a spell on. You've only moved a regular move, you have a standard action left, but, if you go and take it, you get retroactively AoO'd.

First problem: It's been suggested, enthusiastically, by several people (including the Sage, aparently, though I haven't seen a direct quote), that the extra Partial Action from Haste amounts to a sepparte (very short) round. Thus, the one-5'-step-round doesn't aply, and you can take one in each.

This opens up a world of abuse. There are a lot of decision you have to make for the round. For instance, Expertise & Power Attack require you to distribute BAB for the whole round. But, if the Haste action and regular action are partitioned, you can Full Attack for a round, then, on your extra partial action, fight defensively and max out your expertise, oh, and the bonus from your /Defender/ weapon. Only one of your attacks is penalized, but all your opponents attacks will be against the higher AC. Casting a Full-Round spell? No problem, it takes effect right before your partial action, which you can then use to cast a standard action spell. Reach enthusiast? Who needs Power Attack when you can step back and attack (partial action), take a full attack and step back again. You've gotten in every possible attack you can and your opponent will have to use an MEA to close with you, provoking an AoO and getting only one attack to your Full Attack + One.

...

So, really, neither objection seems to convincing. The first would make Haste and similar effects even more powerful, when they're already skating close the edge in terms of balance. The second is something we have to live with anyway.

 

[IanB]

KarinsDad -

I was talking about reach, yes - and it works with reach weapons too.

You are hasted, you start next to someone. You adjust back 5', take your full attack, take your partial attack, and adjust back another 5'. You are now 10' away from them.

 

[Uller]

Example of Abuse

A Hasted Dwarf in full plate is 10' from his foe(an orc). He want's to drink his Potion of CLW and whoop up on his foe's butt with a full attack. He can't do this...Drink the potion. Move. Full Attack...can't be done in one round. But wait!

Partial action = Drink Potion + 5' step.
Full Round Action = 5' step + Full Attack.

I'm sorry, but moving 2/3 of your speed, drinking a potion and performing a FA is obviously not what was intended here...

Sorry. I don't buy it. Just because the 5' step is definded under MEAs doesn't mean that the definition doesn't apply always.

Also...if the one-per-round rule really only applies to 5' steps in conjunction with MEAs and not with partial actions, then can I move my full movement and Ready a partial action that includes a 5' step, thus allowing me to move more than my total speed? By the logic that the rule under MEAs only applies to MEAs, then I can do this and be acting within the rules.