5' Step Questions (Moved from House Rules)

[StalkingBlue]

I like the suggested rule that came up in the House Rules thread - if a 5' step is combined with an action that would otherwise provoke an AoO (like shooting a bow), then it provokes an AoO. The rationale is that the AoO-provoking action occurs 'during' the 5' step.

That seems much simpler than my suggestions, deals efficiently with the archer/potion-drinker/no-Conc spellcaster/etc problem, and adds a negligible amount of complexity. I like it a lot.

Hm, sounds interesting. I'll be seeing it in play in your games I guess? I don't expect I'll be having much potion-drinking going on in my Midnight game (potions being so rare and dangerous to carry), but the archers-in-melee thing might come up of course. I have to admit that giving people all of five seconds to fire arrows/rummage through their packs/take a swig while standing a mere step from an enemy with a melee weapon is a bit much, looking at combat in a dramatic rather than purely mechanical/Gamist way.

 

[2o-Eyed Foe]

There is no limit of one free action. You can take as many free actions in a round as you wish, up to what the DM deems "reasonable".

Quickened spells are an exception, as are the new "swift actions" defined in the XPH.

-Hyp.

Thank you for mentioning this, Hyp. In every campaign I have been involved with over the past few years (both as a DM and as a player) we have generally only allowed 1 Free Action per round. Sometimes, under specific circumstances there were more, but this has been a fairly steady rule for us. The point being that, in my mind, it had somehow become an established WOTC rule of only allowing 1 Free Action and not the house rule that it actually is.

Anyhow, this realization clears up a vast majority of my "issues" with the 5' Step. Thanks again for the reminder.

2o-Eyed Foe

 

[Hypersmurf]

The point being that, in my mind, it had somehow become an established WOTC rule of only allowing 1 Free Action and not the house rule that it actually is.

Given that drawing an arrow is a free action, if that rule were official, nobody could shoot more than one (or two, if they were already holding an arrow at the beginning of the round) arrows in a given round...

-Hyp.

 

[S'mon]

DarkMaster - I fully agree that English longbowmen firing en masse were very powerful! However the chances of a 'kill' were historically still less than 1/20 per shot - 7000 English longbow archers firing 70,000 arrows over a couple of minutes could wound or kill 3,500 knights & horses, creating a mass of dead and wounded horses that would disrupt or destroy a cavalry charge. Still nothing like '1 shot 1 kill' though. My example was regular shortbow archers firing on heavy infantry BTW.

 

[S'mon]

Hm, sounds interesting. I'll be seeing it in play in your games I guess? I don't expect I'll be having much potion-drinking going on in my Midnight game (potions being so rare and dangerous to carry), but the archers-in-melee thing might come up of course. I have to admit that giving people all of five seconds to fire arrows/rummage through their packs/take a swig while standing a mere step from an enemy with a melee weapon is a bit much, looking at combat in a dramatic rather than purely mechanical/Gamist way.

Hi SB - yes, I'm planning to introduce this. It's actually more lenient than the regular Conan-OGL rule which is that all 5' steps provoke AoOs if combined with any other action. :\

 

[DarkMaster]

DarkMaster - I fully agree that English longbowmen firing en masse were very powerful! However the chances of a 'kill' were historically still less than 1/20 per shot - 7000 English longbow archers firing 70,000 arrows over a couple of minutes could wound or kill 3,500 knights & horses, creating a mass of dead and wounded horses that would disrupt or destroy a cavalry charge. Still nothing like '1 shot 1 kill' though. My example was regular shortbow archers firing on heavy infantry BTW.

Sorry, I am tired of people comparing the medieval long bow with the one that were used by the american indian. I didn't want to hijack the thread.

 

[IceBear]

I like the suggested rule that came up in the House Rules thread - if a 5' step is combined with an action that would otherwise provoke an AoO (like shooting a bow), then it provokes an AoO. The rationale is that the AoO-provoking action occurs 'during' the 5' step.

That seems much simpler than my suggestions, deals efficiently with the archer/potion-drinker/no-Conc spellcaster/etc problem, and adds a negligible amount of complexity. I like it a lot.

Why bother even keeping the 5ft step with this rule? The only reason to take a 5ft step is to avoid an AoO or to move up to someone who used a 5ft step to avoid you. If I'm a wizard in melee I'm not going to take a 5ft step to cast a spell if it's still going to cause an AoO. I would be better off casting the spell, suffering the AoO, and then moving 30ft back to prevent you from taking a full attack action.

This house rule, in my opinion, is essentially the same as removing the 5ft step. There is no circumstance that I can think of with this rule that anyone would take a 5ft step. A fighter would have no need to take a 5ft step to attack if the archer or wizard didn't take one to avoid an AoO, and an archer or wizard would be better off taking a standard move anyway.

If you want to get rid of it, just get rid of it. I personally have no problem with it as it is. And seriously, plausibility in a D&D game? This is the same game that lets someone fall 100ft or get roasted by a fireball and walk away unscathed If it is ruining your group's enjoyment of the game, then that's fine - kill any rule that does that - but don't do it just because it's no plausible. I guess I got tired of rule tinkering 10 years ago as they ended up being too much work and I didn't have the time for the work

 

[mikebr99]

Why bother even keeping the 5ft step with this rule? The only reason to take a 5ft step is to avoid an AoO or to move up to someone who used a 5ft step to avoid you. If I'm a wizard in melee I'm not going to take a 5ft step to cast a spell if it's still going to cause an AoO. I would be better off casting the spell, suffering the AoO, and then moving 30ft back to prevent you from taking a full attack action.

I agree w/IceBear... I have visions of a soon to be thread in a month's time, crying foul about defensive casting.... again.

Mike

 

[StalkingBlue]

Why bother even keeping the 5ft step with this rule? The only reason to take a 5ft step is to avoid an AoO or to move up to someone who used a 5ft step to avoid you. If I'm a wizard in melee I'm not going to take a 5ft step to cast a spell if it's still going to cause an AoO. I would be better off casting the spell, suffering the AoO, and then moving 30ft back to prevent you from taking a full attack action.

Er, no. That's inaccurate in a number of ways.

As a spellcaster you're better off casting defensively, staying just where you are. If your Concentration is good enough you'll lose very few spells and you won't be inviting AoOs. If you need to move away to prevent a foe from getting a full attack on you after casting (because he's still up and would kill you on his next turn), then you need to take a single or double move anyway (_and_ hope you won't end up in a location your opponent can charge), a 5' step isn't going to help you there anyway even by PHB rules.

As a melee type you need the 5' step all the time, to move up to the next foe in line after you've felled one, to step up towards a foe with longer reach who has charged to just outside your reach the round before, to shuffle around a foe gradually to get into a flanking position without inviting AoOs etc.
You also use the 5' step whenever you have taken a full-round action but want to move/start moving to somewhere else. Melee types at higher levels especially use full-round actions all the time because that's the way they get their iterative attacks.

 

[heirodule]

S'mon, made a great example. You are facing an opponent who only has his bow in his hands in direct melee. You know that as soon as he gets a chance there is going to be an arrow coming your way at short range. Any fighter worth his salt is going to do everything within his power to never let that archer have room to prepare and fire an arrow at him.

Well, he can trip or disarm, and since the archer is not "armed" he wont get an AoO. The trip & disarm are not infallible though.

The problem comes with the static nature of the archer defender during the attackers turn. You're worrying that the archer couln't avoid an attack from the guy 5' in front of him, but why not worry that the archer had no recourse when the guy moved from 30' away the last round.

In fact we can subsume whatever issues of the 5' getaway into the archers subsumed activity prior to his trun when he makes a 5' step. He is able to do so because in some sense he subsumedly completes part ofthe activity. The moving swordsman gets his one hit in, but that was on an archer already "2.5'" away, as it were.

Make sense? Or we can just play the RAW and not worry about it.