Blatant abuse of the five foot step?

[RSKennan]

It seems to me that the action described (5' step off an edge to get a "free ride" down, knowing he has enough HP to survive the fall) is blatant metagaming.

Alas, I am the player in question, and Mrtauntaun was another.

I don't see it as metagaming; my character has always taken foolish risks in order to impress people. For example, this is a guy who specialized in the throwing dagger, when a bow would be massivley more effective by now. I assure you that metagaming is the furthest thing from my mind.

I also want to say that the facts of the matter are a little skewed in how they've been represented so far, as mrtauntaun was the player most opposed to my taking this action.

The fall was 30 feet (I was above everyone else) and could have easily killed me, as I had previously taken damage from a fireball-like effect. The GM was about to allow the action with a -8 penalty to all attacks. Similarly, I was prepared to revise my desciption of the action to be "attack 1st, then take a five foot step" and merrily imagine it the way I wanted to anyway, but the dispute was starting to get out of hand. I ended up opting out of the action to allow the game to continue, and took names anyway.

In the end I was swayed that taking a 5 foot step 'into air' wouldn't be so easy, but not for the reasons most people are mentioning; the psychological difficulties would make it take at least a move action, as I psyched myself up.

Though I'm a player in the group I'm currently with, I've otherwise been a career GM, and I'd personally love to see players try the things I do with my current character. This isn't tooting my own horn or anything, as some obviously don't appreciate the style of game I like, of course. In my own defense, I'll say that I had just read Iron Heroes.

 

[Nail]

The question at hand here is can you take a 5ft-step (as the 5ft-step non-action, and not as movement -- key point) horizontally into open air.

Exactly. And since you can't step into open air......without magic.....

Besides, the f-ft step is actually "an adjustment". How do you "adjust" without support?

 

[Henry]

...If falls did CON damage, we wouldn't even be having this discussion...

While it may seem like an exploit, I don't see anything in the rules expressly forbidding it, either, unless you want to say that someone cannot willingly fall. Jumping down is WAY different from falling, and he didn't jump down, because he didn't take non-lethal damage from the first ten feet, he took real damage. I'll agree that simply walking over a ledge is a stupid action in the real world, but it's been done countless times. If he falls, lands prone, and has to use a move action to get up, his measly three dagger attacks certainly cost him enough to pull off.

 

[OptionalRule]

Adding to my reply above I think a good compromise for this situation would be to allow the player to take the action, but give them full fall damage and make them prone so they have to spend a move action (with AoO) the following round. That's only if someone feels a compromise is nessisary, again I'm actually for this kind of creativity and action in general and don't see how this can be a big deal (especially if NPCs can do it too).

I think there is a lot of benefit of "learning to say yes" for a GM, but then I'm notoriously stingey.

 

[FEADIN]

For me:
He throws the three daggers and make a 5' step in the air, he begins falling (nothing says "air" is a difficult terrain).
Next round (as in the jump skill) he continues his fall and hit the ground crossing two 5' cases where the ennemie has reach if he falls near him (3 dimensions, when falling you cross the case above the one you are landing, see aerial combat) so he provoques an AoO, he can make a jump check or a tumble check (if he has ranks) because he was "aware" of the fall and it's a movement in the new round.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Full attack action followed by jump/tumble in the same round? I would have to veto that one. Full attack action followed by falling that can be turned into jump/tumble in the next round? I would have to veto that one as well ("After my full attack, I use my 5-foot step to get out of my opponent's weapon range....um, I'll turn that into a tumble next round, so no consequences, okay?").

Full attack followed by a fall that includes full (but not max) falling damage, normal chances to land prone, and the potential for AoOs while falling/landing? That sounds okay to me.

If you're willing to take the consequences, go ahead. It's only the idea of using the 5-foot step to gain an extra action (jump/tumble) that's problematic. Falling is falling.


RC

 

[FEADIN]

In my example the "jump/tumble" check is in the following round, in truth he could have waited on the ledge after his full attack and jumped next round it would have been the same result for me.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In my example the "jump/tumble" check is in the following round, in truth he could have waited on the ledge after his full attack and jumped next round it would have been the same result for me.

Consider the following:

I am fighting an ogre near a ledge. I make a full attack against the ogre, and then step off the ledge so that the ogre cannot attack me in turn.

If I fall now, but get to make a jump/tumble next turn (i.e., my action this turn uses up a move action next turn) then I have front-loaded one turn to gain a benefit that I normally couldn't get.

Conversely, if the stepping off the ledge were treated as a fall, I would merely have to judge whether falling or facing the ogre were preferable. I gain a benefit, but there is a cost attached to that benefit.


RC

 

[mrtauntaun]

To futher expand upon the Ogre example, please Consider the Following (TM, Bill Nye the Science Guy):

A character is in melee combat with an ogre near a ledge. He makes a full attack and take a '5 Foot Step' off the ledge, and begins to fall downwards. Now, as he is moving well within the ogre's threatened area, this would provoke an AoO normally.

'But a 5 foot step never provokes an AoO!!!!'

In this case, because the total movement is net beyond 5 feet within the ogre's threatened area, it would have to, even though the only action the player declared was a 5 foot step. I would therefore state this (the step into air) can not be done on these grounds as well, since such a movement would have to provoke an AoO.
A move action, providing the same result (jumping down, or walking off as a move) would certainly provide an AoO, so this would as well.
Now, there is the arguement out there that falling is not considered movement. I would think since this would have to provoke an AoO in this example, it would have to be considered so.
I knew there was a way I could further complicate this: involve AoO's

I think that makes sense
Anyone?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nah.

The 5-foot-step doesn't provoke an AoO.

The fall, however, might.

Two seperate things; albeit one is the consequence of the other.


RC