5' step, partial actions and haste

[Caliban]

OK, captain technicallity: you must decide how much of a penalty to take to your attack roll in order to get a reciprocal bonus on your damage roll or AC (respecitively), for the round...

I'm sorry if it seemed like I was focusing to much on a technicality, but it does make a real difference in how the two feats interact.

If you have a BAB of +5, and Expertise and Power Attack, you could choose to take a -5 penalty to your attack roll for each feat, giving you a -10 on your attack, +5 AC, and +5 damage.

If you were "allocating your BAB" you would only be able to get a -5 on your attack (and only a +2 or +3 to damage/AC), and at higher levels it would cost you your extra iterative attacks.

I honestly can't take that any other way than 'until your next /initiative/.' Until your next (litteral) action would be meaningless, as you could always tack on a free action to end a modifier you didn't want, even in the middle of full-attacking, to be really litteral about it.

Remember, Free Actions can only take place on your turn, while your doing another action. You have to be taking the Attack or Full Attack action to use Power Attack/Expertise, and the modifiers are in effect until your next action.

Any free actions you take before your next action will be during your current action (and thus won't be next, they are concurrent with the action), and won't reset the modifiers.

 

[Virago]

Artoomis:
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?"

Actually, to do this, you would also have to prove that the rules do not elsewhere imply that you do get an extra 5' step with haste. Otherwise you have merely pointed out a rules inconsistency, and you will have to fall back on "the intent of the game designers is..." And then, no matter which way you argue it, you'll probably conclude "you know, they could have phrased all of this a lot better," which is what I was talking about with the PHB writers.

Also, you rely way too heavily on the glossary quote. I personally don't see a glossary quote as authoritative, and can be easily outweighed by what's in the actual rules. The argument against: the glossary is speaking generally, since it's rather half-assed.

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.

I don't think so. Your argument goes like this:

(1) You avoid an AoO if your entire move for a round is a 5' step.
(2) 5' steps MUST ALWAYS avoid AoOs.
(3) Therefore, if you could take two 5' steps in a round, then they would both avoid AoOs, and this would violate the rule on p. 117 interpreted strongly -- so you can't do it.

Let's call this argument the "I'm sorry, I'd love to move five feet, but I feel like I might provoke an AoO by doing so, so it's somehow impossible" argument.

Your argument hinges on step 2, which relies on your interpretation of the glossary entry, which someone going against your argument would call over-literal, because it's clear that haste is a special case that requires the interpretation of rules that were not written with it in mind.

Step 2 is weak in another way too:

Counterexample:

Hasted fighter, threatened during whole example. The fighter does this sequence of moves:

Standard Attack: (Move 5', attack).
Partial Action: (5' step, attack)

Note that the fighter has only taken one 5' step in this round, because the first movement is not a 5' step. If you rule that it is, then what about this sequence?

Partial Action: (move 5')
Std. Action: (attack, move 5')

This is legal in anyone's rules (except maybe SpikeyFreak on a weird day ), but not if you try to be strict about interpreting 5' movements as 5' steps. Note that if either only the partial or the standard action were performed, you would call them 5' steps and no AoOs would be drawn.

I think the quote on p. 117 does nothing to imply that you cannot take two 5' steps in a round; it merely implies that if you move 10' in a round or more, you don't avoid AoOs for moving.

But even this quote may be undermined by pointing out that it was written with the assumption that you'd never really be able to take two 5' steps in a round anyway.

The reason that it seems "stronger" than other rules is the broad, general way it is phrased, something like "whatever else happens, if you move only 5', that's how you avoid the AoO."

I don't think you have a good case for "the rules say no extra 5' step with haste, beyond a doubt."

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't think you have a good case for "the rules say no extra 5' step with haste, beyond a doubt."

Hey Virago. Thanks for taking up the good fight.

I basically gave up on this one since we seemed to be getting nowhere.

As Lex Luthor said "Sigh. I never thought this one would go the distance."

 

[Artoomis]

Okay, Virago, let me try again.

A 5-foot step does not count as combat movement. If you take more than one 5-foot step in a round somehow, then all of them must be considered part of combat movement because you are only entitled to a "5-foot move" that is not part of combat movement if that is the only movement you take in the round.

So let's take your examples:

Standard Attack: (Move 5', attack).
Partial Action: (5' step, attack)

Under this scenario neither move is a 5-foot step that avoids an AoO, and, in fact, this sequence is illegal. If you move 5 feet, attack, and then move at all (even just 5 feet) in your extra partial action, you can't also attack then, because you are using your partial action for movement.

Partial Action: (move 5')
Std. Action: (attack, move 5')

A legal set of actions, certainly, and this sequence contains no "5-foot step," but, rather, two moves that are only 5 feet long. Yes, taken seperately, you'd have a 5-foot step in each one, true, but then they would be in seperate rounds, which makes all the difference.

As for the glossary - it has been shown that the glossary generally carries more weight than the other rules, as evidenced by the rule that you drop what is in your hands when stunned.

Finaly, let's deal with core of your argument:

The Haste spell is special and rules on rounds don't apply.

That's a rather bold assumption, but if you accept that as true, then there is no way to argue my case at all, for my argument hinges on the definition of a "round" and activities allowed during a round. But nowhere does Haste say to forget the rules on rounds, the ONLY exception to the normal rules on rounds is that you get an extra partial action.

BTW, like all other actions, the partial action does NOT grant you a 5-foot step - it merely allows one if you otherwise meet all the conditions - that is, you have done no other movement during the round.

That, my friend, is the crux of my argument.

So far I have shown THREE quotes from the rules that directly support my side of the argument. What, from the rules as written, supports your side?

The only thing I can see that supports your side of this argument is the rather thin proposition that Haste is special and that the designers didn't really mean round when they wrote that a 5-foot step only happens if you so no other movement in a round.

I'd really like to see a strong argument presented from your side of this debate. One that has it's basis in the rules as written.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

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.

i'm not so sure about that, caliban. after all, you can grapple, trip, disarm, etc as an aoo. i'd say those are definite candidates as a trigger for the ready action.

i mean, seriously, you just screwed a good portion of undercover sting operations. "we wait until the target makes an aggressive move toward the victim, then we move in."

the more i think about your statement, the more it seems to fly in the face of even the simplest form of common sense. think about it. movement is "less" of an action than attacking, and you can trigger on that.

 

[Virago]

Artoomis:

A 5-foot step does not count as combat movement

This is nowhere in the book. Movement is movement. The p. 117 rule actually enforces this by pointing out that a 5' step is pretty much the same as moving only 5' in a round. It's still "combat movement" in all respects -- it's merely 5' of it.

...

Please do not again restate your arguments as if I didn't understand them. There's no need to restate -- your argument relies entirely on the glossary quote, at this point.

Your claim that the glossary is authoritative is not strong. Two words: shield bonus. As another example, the partial action bonus says "you can't choose to take a partial action" when you can according to the body of the rules, "elect" to take one. So the glossary can't be right in this case. And anyway, you only think that the glossary is right on stun because the Sage has told you so.

"it has been shown that the glossary generally carries more weight than the other rules"

!!!. You mean it's been shown that the PHB writers had their heads up their rears

Note that you had to dip into "X is more authoritative becuase it's been shown that that is what the game designers think" style of arguing which is not what you originally set out to do.

If you disagree that the glossary is ignorable, then that's all you need to say. You certainly don't have to go through the points of your argument again with more bolds and italics

the ONLY exception to the normal rules on rounds is that you get an extra partial action

p. 125 "A spell that takes 1 full round to cast is a full-round action, and it comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the next action."

The effect of haste on full-round spells has spawned other long threads and is a shining example of how haste requires flexible interpretation of some of the more literal uses of "round" in the PHB -- and the Sage agrees on this one.

I'd really like to see a strong argument presented from your side of this debate. One that has it's basis in the rules as written.

This has been done, there have been plenty of interpretations of the rules as written, and as read by an intelligent person who realizes that when the rules are in conflict, they must be resolved. You've read these arguments, and I think you understand them. The fact is, Table 8-4 says you get the 5' step, and nothing technically applicable says that it's limited like an MEA step is.

Your glossary quote isn't enough to complete the argument you like, because the literal interpretation of the PHB just doesn't work, because it's poorly written in the area of partial actions and haste. And since there are a few other examples of the PHB self-contradiction, it's not really enough to find an argument that runs on "hey, the PHB literally implies that it works like this!"


Karinsdad:
Hey Virago. Thanks for taking up the good fight

Actually I found Artoomis's argument very interesting. I still vaguely remember the first thread about this that I saw, two or three boards ago? I remember half-seriously suggesting that the 5' step rule only applied to MEAs...

I'm still not sure whose side I'm on -- probably with the haste-nerfers, even though I believe that letting the extra partial action count as a mini-round is the most reasonable response.

 

[Caliban]

i'm not so sure about that, caliban. after all, you can grapple, trip, disarm, etc as an aoo. i'd say those are definite candidates as a trigger for the ready action.

Sure you can. It's just one more condition your placing on the trigger action.

i mean, seriously, you just screwed a good portion of undercover sting operations. "we wait until the target makes an aggressive move toward the victim, then we move in."

Nothing I said prevents that. If they are taking an "aggressive move", then they would be using an attack action to make their attack. Basically you are readying an action that triggers on their attack action. You could have even said: "if they move, I attack", which would be setting the trigger as any action they take.

If the victim did something that provoked an AoO from the bad guy, then your readied action wouldn't trigger. The bad guy reacted reflexively, and you won't be able to stop him in time. You would react after the fact, on your normal action.

If the bad guy deliberately takes an action to attack the victim, your readied action goes off, and you might be able to stop him.

Classic cinematic standoff.

the more i think about your statement, the more it seems to fly in the face of even the simplest form of common sense. think about it. movement is "less" of an action than attacking, and you can trigger on that.

And an AoO is less of an action than movement, it's not even an action. The Attack Action is "more" of an action than movement, but the attack you perform on the attack action is just a component of the action, not the action itself.

But hey, keep on telling me I'm stupid. I'm sure it will make me want to see your side of things.

 

[Artoomis]

Artoomis:

A 5-foot step does not count as combat movement

This is nowhere in the book. Movement is movement. The p. 117 rule actually enforces this by pointing out that a 5' step is pretty much the same as moving only 5' in a round. It's still "combat movement" in all respects -- it's merely 5' of it.

No, once again, from the glossary:

A small position adjustment that does not count as a move in combat.

That seems pretty clear to me.

Please do not again restate your arguments as if I didn't understand them. There's no need to restate -- your argument relies entirely on the glossary quote, at this point.

First- no, my argument is not based soley on the glossary, it's all three quotes taken together. Second, it's hard not to restate when you mistate my points as above. I quoted the glossary defintion on that before, but you said it's not in the book - forcing me to re-state my point or have your statement taken as fact when it is fiction.

Your claim that the glossary is authoritative is not strong. Two words: shield bonus. As another example, the partial action bonus says "you can't choose to take a partial action" when you can according to the body of the rules, "elect" to take one. So the glossary can't be right in this case. And anyway, you only think that the glossary is right on stun because the Sage has told you so.

"it has been shown that the glossary generally carries more weight than the other rules"

!!!. You mean it's been shown that the PHB writers had their heads up their rears

Note that you had to dip into "X is more authoritative becuase it's been shown that that is what the game designers think" style of arguing which is not what you originally set out to do.

If you disagree that the glossary is ignorable, then that's all you need to say. You certainly don't have to go through the points of your argument again with more bolds and italics

Sorry, I like bold and italics.

Okay: The glossary is not ignorable.

Oh, and you don't "elect" to take a partial action except in "some situations" like Haste when you get an extra one (thus the glossary is correct - spells make exceptions to the general rule - but your point on "shield bonus" is well-taken).

edit: If you read the whole partial action section in context, you realize that by "you don't elect to take a partial action" they mean you don't choose it as an action like you do other actions - it's situational. I hope that makes sense.

the ONLY exception to the normal rules on rounds is that you get an extra partial action

p. 125 "A spell that takes 1 full round to cast is a full-round action, and it comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the next action."

The effect of haste on full-round spells has spawned other long threads and is a shining example of how haste requires flexible interpretation of some of the more literal uses of "round" in the PHB -- and the Sage agrees on this one.

Fairly made point. Of course, this problem has less to do with the definition of a round then it does the definition of a "full-round action." An entirely different discussion, and a full-round action's defintion does present problems with Haste (the simplest resolution of those is the unacceptable by-the book ruling that if you take a full-round action you give up your partial action from haste - but let's not go there, okay?).

I'd really like to see a strong argument presented from your side of this debate. One that has it's basis in the rules as written.

This has been done, there have been plenty of interpretations of the rules as written, and as read by an intelligent person who realizes that when the rules are in conflict, they must be resolved. You've read these arguments, and I think you understand them. The fact is, Table 8-4 says you get the 5' step, and nothing technically applicable says that it's limited like an MEA step is./

?? Table 8-4 has to do with Attacks of opportunity. I assume you mean table 8-3. And you are reading that table incorrectly, as though the actions somehow granted you a 5-foot step. Of course, that's not the case, the actions listed allow you to take a 5-foot step, providing, of course, that you are otherwise eligible to do so. Thius is clear when you read all three AoO quotes together.

I'm still not sure whose side I'm on -- probably with the haste-nerfers, even though I believe that letting the extra partial action count as a mini-round is the most reasonable response.

Well, in no way am I stating that I have the most reasonable asnwer. I am only trying to state the rules as written.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Well, in no way am I stating that I have the most reasonable asnwer. I am only trying to state the rules as written.

Well, here I go....

Arty, I agree that the rules as written don't allow for an additional 5' step during haste because they do imply that you only get one a round.

BUT

I don't think the designers took haste into account when those rules were written. There are other places where there are rules that don't say "except in this case" or even just say "it's almost always this way" or even just a little "usually" when it should have such wording.

It really just doesn't make sense to NOT allow a 5' step because, as I keep repeating, your arms shouldn't be the only thing that's moving faster when you are hasted.

--Weak-Willed Spikey

 

[Uller]

So...has anyone asked the Sage this question?

Seems simple enough: "Is it possible to take more than one 5' step per round? Example: A hasted figther takes a 5' step, does a Full Attack action and then as his extra partial action he take's a single attack. Can he then take a 5' step back?"

I'll send it to him, but I know some of you get quicker resonpses than I do.