Blatant abuse of the five foot step?

[mrtauntaun]

Ok, a character in our group has 3 attacks when making a full attack. Here's the situation, the character is on a second story, standing at the edge. There are enemies on the ground floor. He wants to attack them with a ranged weapon and get to the bottom floor.
So, he declares that he takes a five foot step off the edge and while falling, throws three daggers (thusly taking his full attack, as he claims the five foot is 'free')
As a concession, he is offers to take full damage from the fall and a penalty to hit (-6 per attack). We have fairly high base attacks, so the penalty won't matter too much, but that is besides the point I suppose.
I am arguing that this is a blatant abuse of the five foot step rule, as IMO is was not intended for this kind of thing, so we have a fierce debate going on
What do you guys think? We're playing right now, so chime up!!!!

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'd make it -8 (similar to taking a full ranged attack from a running mount without the Mounted Archery feat), but otherwise it sounds fine

On the other hand, if he threw the daggers, then stepped off, I wouldn't impose any penalty.

Put it this way... if someone threw three daggers, then used their five-foot step to move behind a statue for cover, not realising that there was a pit trap behind the statue... would you allow them to not trigger the pit trap? Or would they fall and take damage?

-Hyp.

 

[mrtauntaun]

After debating for abit, we came to the same conclusion that he should actually throw the daggers FIRST
What we're curious about now, is can you use the five foot step to intentionally fall down 10 or more feet, thusly taking more than five feet in movement, or should that be considered a move action?

 

[C.W.Richeson]

I would veto it based on sillyness. I believe that a strict interpretation of the rules is on his side, however.

You could call it a Jump check related action. http://d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm

Jumping straight up at the end of a move is considered additional movement, so hoping down would make sense as being additional movement too.

In character speak that's what he's doing after all, flinging a dagger and jumping down from the roof. I can't imagine a character just flinging daggers and falling on his face.

 

[mrtauntaun]

I would veto it based on sillyness. I believe that a strict interpretation of the rules is on his side, however.

You could call it a Jump check related action. http://d20srd.org/srd/skills/jump.htm

Jumping straight up at the end of a move is considered additional movement, so hoping down would make sense as being additional movement too.

In character speak that's what he's doing after all, flinging a dagger and jumping down from the roof. I can't imagine a character just flinging daggers and falling on his face.

The crux is he is making a full attack, and to do that he would need the five foot step. A jump would require an action, preventing him from making his full attack.
So I guess a better way to phrase it is: can you take a full non-movement action (such as a full attack) and then take a five foot step to intentionally fall 10 or more feet, or should that require a move action?

 

[Wonko the Sane]

So I guess a better way to phrase it is: can you take a full non-movement action (such as a full attack) and then take a five foot step to intentionally fall 10 or more feet, or should that require a move action?

Sure, why not? The downside is that you land prone at the feet of the guys you just stuck daggers into. They're probably not dead, and may just punish you with AoOs when you attempt to stand.

WtS

 

[Lazybones]

I'd allow it but if he takes the full attack, I would not allow any actions to reduce the effects of the fall (a jump roll, tumble, etc.) that would normally take a move-action to execute. I don't know about feather fall, that's supposed to be virtually instantaneous. It's like he's taking the extra time to attack that would otherwise use to mitigate his fall. Plus I agree he'd be prone at the end.

Plus I assume he has Quick Draw if he's throwing all these daggers.

 

[mrtauntaun]

Plus I assume he has Quick Draw if he's throwing all these daggers.

He draws the three daggers and holds them out.

 

[C.W.Richeson]

The crux is he is making a full attack, and to do that he would need the five foot step. A jump would require an action, preventing him from making his full attack.
So I guess a better way to phrase it is: can you take a full non-movement action (such as a full attack) and then take a five foot step to intentionally fall 10 or more feet, or should that require a move action?

Right, and as I said I think he's fine strictly by the rules. Full attack, five foot step, fall damage is applied normally. His character should be prone due to the fall.

I pointed out Jump because using Jump to move on the Z axis counts as movement, and so couldn't be part of a 5 foot step. There is support in the rules for an argument against that... tactical decision right there. I think it may be especailly important because it's a concious decision to move and therefore should not necessarily be treated as a normal fall. How does a person intentionally fall anyway? I would rule that to intentionally fall would have to be a jump or tumble based action.

Letter of the rules vs. spirit of the rules, or so I see it.

 

[dcollins]

What do you guys think?

Make sure to rule that he's prone after the fall, so he has to spend a move action next round to stand up anyway.

Also, you're running into the issue that falling is rather too safe in the D&D core rules. I use cumulative damage for falling and all other environmental effects (1d6 for 10', 3d6 for 20', 6d6 for 30', etc.; Gygax claimed circa 1980 that this is what the rule was supposed to be). My players really look to avoid falling, and if they have to, really really want the Jump check for -10 ft. effect.