5' step, partial actions and haste

[Cl1mh4224rd]

From p.56 of the (updated) D&D FAQ:

"A character can take only one 5-foot step each round, and then
only if the character has not otherwise moved during the round.
Supreme cleave lets you step between cleave attacks, but you still
can step only once".

I'm on the 'only one 5ft step/round' side.

son of ***** ... just when the issue was settling down.

personally, i'd go with the one free 5' step per round interpretation. even hasted, you could only really get two 5' steps, the second of which could possibly provoke an aoo. (imo, the whole movement/action/aoo interaction is a bit screwy, though)

besides, i don't see supreme cleave anywhere in the core rulebooks.

 

[Magnus]

i had no idea that this would spark this much debate! i assumed that the partial action was separate from the rest of the round's actions, the "seeing" argument that's been presented. but i can see D) how it could go either way. seems to me that this is the crux of the debate: does the extra partial action count as part of your regular round's actions.

a DM friend of mine said that allowing an independent partial action, makes an already awesome spell, much better than it's meant to be. it is, after all, only a 3rd lvl spell. he cited the alteration to shield's cover bonus being made, coz the spell was never meant to eliminate AoOs as well.

so, as much as i'd prefer that it didn't work that way, (dammit dammit dammit ) i think the idea that making a second 5' step would provoke an AoO, is the right one. even tho it's not explicitly stated in the rules. of course no matter how good the rule system is, there's no way for anyone to foresee every option that player will come up with.

as for the time paradox of AoOs, i think the right way to approach them, is to realise that we're the ones who don't realise when they happen, not the characters. as i recall (don't have the PHB in hand) AoOs happen coz a character isn't paying enuff attention to his opponent. so, planning to step out, drink, and step back in (as in the example i had), is what caused the AoO not the actual movement.

thank u all for the many, varied answers to my Q. these are the best boards i've posted on!!!

 

[KarinsDad]

so, as much as i'd prefer that it didn't work that way, (dammit dammit dammit ) i think the idea that making a second 5' step would provoke an AoO, is the right one. even tho it's not explicitly stated in the rules. of course no matter how good the rule system is, there's no way for anyone to foresee every option that player will come up with.

Actually, you misinterpret.

You do not get a second "5 foot step". You can move 5 foot with a standard action when moving back, but not with a full round action.

So, you move back 5 and drink a potion (that you already had in hand) with a partial action. No AoO since you only did a 5 foot move.

You then move forward 5 and normal (not full round) attack. No AoO since there is no AoO for moving into a threatened space.

The only question remaining is whether there is a retroactive AoO for moving back 5 feet and with a different action, moving forward 5 feet.

Even with the "only one 5 foot move" rule of the FAQ, it is still unclear as to whether the first action would retroactively provoke an AoO. Maybe some of the wording in the PHB on AoO would clear this up. But, from my point of view, if a 9th level spell (not Timestop) made you 3 times faster and gave you 3 full actions in a round, why wouldn't you be able to do anything in any of them that you could normally do?

I think I will just segregate the actions in a round, regardless of what the FAQ states, just to keep things simpler.

 

[Junkheap]

I don't see a problem here at all with what the FAQ says. As far as i can see and as far as we play right now, you get only 1 5 foot movement for his entire round, not just that action,even if you are hasted. I think it is already a powerfull spell for what it is and with allowing another 5 foot step would just be way too unbalancing. If you do allow the second 5 foot step i would make the second move as the AOO. The second move is what provoked it.

I can just forsee cleric/mages with haste and the cleric spell from MOF that give you another partial action(Don't remember the name). So 2 extra partial actions!! a total move of 15 feet.

A third level spell should not be as powerfull as to allow a mage to basically take 2 5 foot steps. Another sceanerio is when a fighter fights his way to a mage and is in front of his face. Mage takes his partial action to step 5 foot back and casts. Not his standard action steps back again 5 feet and casts again. Now the fighter with multiple attacks is screwed because he has to setp up 10 feet. No way, its a 3rd level spell for god sakes.

Sorry, its just the way i feel.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Yeah boy, a 3rd level spell that allows 5' more movement really is a powerful spell.

--Sarcastic Spikey

 

[KarinsDad]

Yeah boy, a 3rd level spell that allows 5' more movement really is a powerful spell.

--Sarcastic Spikey

hehehe

 

[KarinsDad]

A third level spell should not be as powerfull as to allow a mage to basically take 2 5 foot steps. Another sceanerio is when a fighter fights his way to a mage and is in front of his face. Mage takes his partial action to step 5 foot back and casts. Not his standard action steps back again 5 feet and casts again. Now the fighter with multiple attacks is screwed because he has to setp up 10 feet. No way, its a 3rd level spell for god sakes.

Excuse me, but I think your example is perfect for illustrating why the actions should be segregated and so should the movement. Let's take a Hasted (with potion for example) Cleric instead of a Mage.

Partial action: Move back 5 feet and cast Hold Person on the Fighter
If HP successful
Standard action: Move back 30 feet and cast Cure Serious on an ally.
If HP not successful
Standard action: Cast Hold Person again on the Fighter.

If second HP successful
Move back 30 feet
If second HP not successful
Stay put

Are you saying that the movement from the first partial action retroactively MUST provoke an AoO because within the entire round, the caster MIGHT move back more than 5 feet and cast?

How do you resolve this?

If the Fighter fails his first save, the Cleric moves more than 5 feet in the “entire round”. If the Fighter retroactively gets an AoO for that, the Cleric’s spell might fail which might result in him not moving more than 5 feet, hence, not giving the AoO to the Fighter.

This “retroactive stuff” can only apply to single actions. Otherwise, you have a chicken and egg situation. The Fighter gets an AoO if the spell succeeds (because the Cleric plans to move more than 5 feet). If the Fighter gets an AoO, the spell might not be cast and the Cleric does not move more than 5 feet, which in turn prevents the Fighter from getting an AoO.


The only clean way to resolve this is to segregate the actions and their associated movement.

The Cleric moves back 5 feet and casts as a partial action.

The Cleric is more than 5 feet away, so he then on his normal action does whatever he wants. Which in this case, allows him to move a total of 35 feet (considerably more than the 10 feet you were worried about) and cast twice.

The Fighter gets no AoO due to the Cleric only moving 5 feet and casting on his first action.

End of story. This solution totally resolves these types of conflicts.


But, if you segregate the actions and their associated movements, there is no reason to say "Well, you already moved 5 feet with your partial action, hence, you cannot move 5 feet with a full round action, even though that full round action does typically allow a 5 foot move with it"

Here, you are limiting what can be done with a full round action. Either the spell gives a partial and a full, or it does not. This ruling implies that it really does not. That's kind of cheap. You get a partial action and almost a full round action. Hmmmm.

 

[Magnus]

as an aside (at the risk of derailing my own thread ):

all of this talk of retroactive AoOs and time paradoxes is exactly why i think we're viewing this concept from the wrong angle. consider this example (assuming, for the sake of argument, that u can only take one 5' step per round regardless of haste):

hastened spell caster takes 5' step and casts spell.
target makes his save and is unaffected
spell caster decides to move even further back to cast another spell
target gets AoO since the spell caster moved more than 5'

from the player's POV, the AoO happens retroactively and only because the caster made a second move after he found out that his first spell failed.

however, from the POV of the character, the spell caster would have had to have had the plan in mind, that if his first spell failed, he'd then make a second move further away, even if the player hadn't realised it yet. it is this forward planning that takes the character's attention away from battle momentarily, and causes him to provoke an AoO.

so while in our world, the attack is resolved retroactively, in the character's world, it actually happens when it should. we're the ones who are just a lil slow on the uptake

therefore, i don't think it adds complexity to the game to say that the basic rules still apply. i think that's the real Q here. (getting back to the main point ) does haste change the normal rules or not. i think no.

 

[KarinsDad]

hastened spell caster takes 5' step and casts spell.
target makes his save and is unaffected
spell caster decides to move even further back to cast another spell
target gets AoO since the spell caster moved more than 5'

…

therefore, i don't think it adds complexity to the game to say that the basic rules still apply. i think that's the real Q here. (getting back to the main point ) does haste change the normal rules or not. i think no.

It seems like it adds a boatload of complexity with your interpretation above:

If the character is not hasted, then the AoO occurs BEFORE he can cast his spell in the case that he moves more than 5 feet and casts. And, it can disrupt his spell (normal rules).

If the character is hasted, then the AoO occurs AFTER he cast his spell in the case that he moves more than 5 feet and casts, but he only moves 5 feet with his first partial action (see your list above). Not only that, the AoO occurs from 10 feet away.

So, different rules apply to if he is hasted or not.

That is very strange and will make adjudicating in differing situations difficult.


It really has nothing to do with the Player’s POV vs. the Character’s POV. It has to do with a set of rules that not only make sense, but are easy enough for everyone to understand. Your special rule above is not easy enough for everyone to understand since it changes the rules between hasted and non-hasted cases.


Go back and read this thread. Until karooba posted that the FAQ had a one 5 foot step per round limit, a lot of the posters were thinking that the segregation of actions and movement was the easiest and cleanest solution.

Caliban: “I believe that you would be allowed to take a second 5' step if you are hasted.”

Number47: “I think the principle of Occam's Razor applies here: the simplest solution is probably the best one. ”

Just because WotC comes up with a rule which does not take Haste into account does not mean that the rule is good because it works okay for the non-hasted case.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Excuse me, but I think your example is perfect for illustrating why the actions should be segregated and so should the movement. Let's take a Hasted (with potion for example) Cleric instead of a Mage.

Partial action: Move back 5 feet and cast Hold Person on the Fighter
If HP successful
Standard action: Move back 30 feet and cast Cure Serious on an ally.
If HP not successful
Standard action: Cast Hold Person again on the Fighter.

If second HP successful
Move back 30 feet
If second HP not successful
Stay put

Are you saying that the movement from the first partial action retroactively MUST provoke an AoO because within the entire round, the caster MIGHT move back more than 5 feet and cast?

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