5' step, partial actions and haste

[KarinsDad]

KarinsDad, I don't even know how to reply. I am dumfounded by your response - especially:

quote:

It does NOT say that this 5 foot move is the same as a “5 foot step”. In fact, it quick clearly applies to both 5 foot moves as part of standard movement and 5 foot steps as part of small positional adjustments.

If you really believe that, we are done. I can hardly believe you even wrote that. Amazing. What do you think the parenthetical (a 5-foot step) is refering to? You don't think that is refering to the "5-foot step" as in the small positional adjustment?

Yes I do think the contents of the parenthesis means that. But, “(a 5-foot step)” in parenthesis does not necessarily indicate the only way this must happen within the sentence. It might indicate a single example of how this can happen. The English language is like that: parenthesis can mean e.g. or they can mean i.e. For example, page 86 of PHB "Any surface (fresh snow, thick dust, wet mud) that holds deep, clear impressions of the footprints." Are you implying that items in parenthesis must mean i.e. instead of e.g.? If so, then for this example, fresh snow, thick dust, and wet mud are the ONLY surfaces that are very soft ground.

“If your entire move for the round is 5 feet (a 5-foot step), enemies do not get attacks of opportunity for you moving.”

How does this preclude you moving 5 feet and attacking during a round and not being AoOed?

And, how does this have anything to do with the number of times you can take a “5 foot step” in a round?

Answers: it doesn’t and it doesn’t.

That sentence could mean either. A 5 foot step positional adjustment OR a 5 foot step as the sum of your total move for a round as part of normal movement. Either. Not just one. The parenthesis portion could just be an example. And again, it has no bearing whatsoever as support for your position.

Example:

I move 5 feet and attack.
I attack and move 5 feet.
I attack, pull out a potion, and move 5 feet.
I pull out a potion, move 5 feet, and attack.

In the first two cases, it is unclear and irrelevant whether the 5 feet is part of a standard move or a “5 foot step”. Now, you can rules lawyer argue that it must be a “5 foot step” since that is in parenthesis on both pages 117 and pages 122, but really. Who cares? What does that have to do with how many “5 foot steps” you can get in a round? All these statements indicate is that you do not get AoOed if you only take 5 foot of movement in a round. So, if Haste allowed you two 5 foot steps in a round, you would provoke a retroactive AoO with the first one. So what? It does not prove that it is not allowed. In fact, retroactive AoOs are part of the game.

In the last two cases, it is quite clear that the 5 feet is part of a “5 foot step”. And in these cases, an AoO is still provoked. Not for movement, but for the MEA of pulling out the potion.


So yes, I stated it that way. To me, this is a minor rules lawyer quibble. You still have to illustrate what AoOs have to do at all with how many 5 foot steps you can get. All they illustrate is how many you get and still not provoke an AoO. One.


What’s worse, instead of discussing the real contents of my post, you fell apart on a stupid minor issue that really has no bearing on the number of 5 foot steps per round issue.

The real contents of my post were:

1) You have one rule that supports your position in any way and
2) that one rule is limited to MEAs, hence, everything beyond MEAs is a total extrapolation on your part and
3) no rules in the book explicitly talk about multi-actions rounds, hence, by default, we can only presume that they are correct with regard to single action rounds. So even the MEA rule is suspect with regard to multi-action rounds since it (nor any other rule) talks about multi-action rounds within it. Since the rules discuss single action rounds (i.e. full action, standard action, or partial) all over the place, anything beyond that is up to each individual DM.

The fact is that both sides are shooting into the wind here and have no clear support since there is no true multi-action round rules in the book. Not one. All we have are best guesses, inferences, theories, and preferences. Yours are as good as mine. You refuse to admit it and want to be dumbfounded over a minor side issue. Fine.


Finally, the glossary appears to support our position as much as it does yours.

"Usually (but not always), a 5-foot step is permitted in conjunction with a full-round action and may be taken at any point in a round. Most partial actions also permit a 5-foot step."

According to this, it can be taken at any point in a round. During the normal action of Haste and during the partial action of Haste. Each individual action allows it.

But again, this is not conclusive in any way since it does not talk about multi-action rounds and it could be disallowed if a different rule explicitly disallowed it.

 

[Virago]

Ristamar said:
Feh. I knew this cliched line of thought was bound to pop up. Alright then, what authority do you go to, if you don't ask the Sage? . . .

I meant "we could" in the sense of "we could stick our hands in a vat of acid, but let's not."

But note that the Sage has already answered both ways on this one already, so on the topic in question we know he's already made at least one mistake.

(stubbornness)
I don't quite see it that way. Truth be told, both sides are being stubborn.

Well, there's persistent and then there's stubborn. Then there is just plain argumentative, which is yours truly.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with pretending to believe something for the sake of reasonable argument. But making statements such as "the rules are clear" when it's been shown that they aren't . . .

Artoomis:

If I said something personal, I apologize. If it's about bold italics though, you asked for it

 

[Ristamar]

Originally posted by Virago I meant "we could" in the sense of "we could stick our hands in a vat of acid, but let's not."

Ah, I gotcha. *nod*

Originally posted by Virago Anyway, there's nothing wrong with pretending to believe something for the sake of reasonable argument. But making statements such as "the rules are clear" when it's been shown that they aren't . . .

Alright, I suppose you might have a point there. I'm not about to step into that one, though... hehe. I'll just wait for Skip's answer. The only thing I'm truly hoping for is an explanation coming with said answer.

 

[Magnus]

Sent this question off to the Sage this morning. Problem solved (assuming he responds).

well has he? fortunately, i haven't been around long enuff to be jaded by the prospect of a "sage" response. i still can't believe that this one Q has sparked this much debate! lol

 

[Demogorge]

Monks anyone?

18th level monk with the Snatch Arrows feat.

Here is a character who can make 6 well-placed unarmed attacks doing huge (d20) damage, snatch spears out of midair and throw them back instantaneously, and move at 90 ft. per round.

To a low level character this guy is moving 3 times faster than anyone else with BOTH hands and feet (attacks & speed), and is obviously a powerful and expert fighter. Yet he is still restricted to the 5' step. For whatever reason, the 5' step is sacred. Even a 20th level character can't change it. Heck a hypothetical 40th level character is still restricted to it. But a 5th level spellcaster, not highly trained in combat, can cast a spell that allows him to: attack an enemy, move 10', disengage from the enemy and engage another while keeping his guard up sufficiently to not give them an opportunity to attack him, and attack the second enemy.

[HILARITY]
Upon seeing this the aforementioned monk would leave his monastic order in search of a place where he can learn how to pull off moves like that.

On the way there he is tripped several times by mischevious young hasted wizards, who do not suffer AoOs because they're "moving too fast".[/HILARITY]

BTW, I think it's fine to let them move the 2 5' steps, but I think they should suffer AoOs, it just seems fair. Not by the rules, or logic, but magic does funny things...

 

[Virago]

Demogorge:
Upon seeing this the aforementioned monk would leave his monastic order in search of a place where he can learn how to pull off moves like that.

But then of course he probably has Tumble, Mobility, and Spring Attack, so he's not impressed at all by someone avoiding an AoO, and he's probably not losing sleep over not being able to get in two attacks against foes who are separated by 10' apart or more.

Rather than leave the monastery, I think he might just pat the haste item he already has and say "oh yes, I forgot I've been doing that for years, how silly of me."

You're merely dressing up the "why is a 5' step only 5' for everyone?" argument, which doesn't pertain to this argument very much at all, really.

 

[Bonedagger]

apologies if this has been adressed before. but this just occured to me tonite. this Q is in two parts and a negative answer on the first kinda make the second useless. but here goes..

firstly, is a 5'step allowed with a partial action? if one can do a partial charge, i don't see why not

secondly, if the answer to the above is yes, can a hasted character do:

5' step out of melée range > drink potion > 5' back into melée range > full attack action

First q: Yes. Look at page 121 in PHB buttom. ("Typically, you may take a 5-foot steep as part of a partial action.").

Second q:yes. The question is if this will provoke an attack of opportunity. No. It is not important how far you move. It's important how much of your mind that is focused on your enemy.

 

[Xahn'Tyr]

well has he? fortunately, i haven't been around long enuff to be jaded by the prospect of a "sage" response. i still can't believe that this one Q has sparked this much debate! lol

No response from the Sage yet. Rest assured I will post it the second it arrives (if it does arrive).

 

[dcollins]

Rather than leave the monastery, I think he might just pat the haste item he already has and say "oh yes, I forgot I've been doing that for years, how silly of me."

For example, the monastery might even have something as crazy, as say... a monk's belt lying around.

 

[Uller]

Re: Re: 5' step, partial actions and haste

First q: Yes. Look at page 121 in PHB buttom. ("Typically, you may take a 5-foot steep as part of a partial action.").

Second q:yes. The question is if this will provoke an attack of opportunity. No. It is not important how far you move. It's important how much of your mind that is focused on your enemy.

I'm sorry, Bonedagger, but you really need to qualify your answer here with an "IMO" because this thread is proof that there are plenty of intelligent and reasonable people who would answer NO to the second question and "You move 10' and do something other than a move...hell yeah that provokes and AoO!" to the second part of the second question.

I'm not going to rehash all of the old arguements here...just point out that when a point is in such heavy contention, it is best not to aswer so authoritatively.