Blatant abuse of the five foot step?

[SBMC]

The D&D rules assume that you have actions for things under your control. For example, you can be bullrushed in a given round in addition to any movement you might have. You can also be bullrushed over an edge, causing you to fall. Should I mention various spell effects that others might use on you? Uncontrolled movement in addition to controlled movement is nothing new to the game.

Falling is uncontrolled movement. If it were controlled, it would be jumping (or tumbling).

Also, falling speed is independent of movement speed. An immobile creature (SPd 0 feet) pushed over a ledge will still fall, thus exceding its movement allotment.

So, while Wile E. Coyote might be able to stand on air to take a blow, the second that most of us are unsupported, we begin to feel the effects of gravity.

What I am saying is, let him take the 5 foot step. Then let him take the normal consequences of falling. It's not only the simplest solution, but its probably the best. Of course, as always, YMMV.


RC

But he gets the free move action (with zero consequences) of "jumping down" from a ledge as stated in the RAW. So why should everyone not just "step off" a cliff and not burn an action?

The issue is whether that 5 foot step is a legal move.

 

[SBMC]

New idea/Solution

What if, given taht the question of the 5 foot step is in question here, you force the PC to make a save to do it.

In other words - sure he can "step" off that cliff and NOT burn the move action (jumping down per the RAW) but he must still make a jump and/or tumble and/or balance check to make that move? With a VERY high DC. If the PC makes it the normal RAW apply but he gets that free move action of just plain stepping instead of jumping down. If he fails then he can't make that 5 foot step at all.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But he gets the free move action (with zero consequences) of "jumping down" from a ledge as stated in the RAW.

Er, no, he doesn't. Jumping down requires a Jump check and can reduce the damage you take from the distance fallen.

Falling off a cliff means you don't get to make a Jump check and suffer full damage from the distance fallen.

In either case, you can get a Tumble check to reduce the damage taken.

 

[Nail]

Would you allow a PC to take a 5-foot step into an area with entangle cast on it?

Yes. An entangled area is not impassable terrain.

Would you allow a PC to accidently take a 5-foot step that lands her in a pit?

Depends. If the pit is covered initially, or there is an illusion over the pit, then yes. If the pit is open, then no.

Personally, if you're standing next to a ledge, I don't think you necessarily have to be able to move a full 5 feet to start falling.

Again, you're falling for the red herring. Falling or not has no effect on the ability to make a 5-foot step.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Depends. If the pit is covered initially, or there is an illusion over the pit, then yes. If the pit is open, then no.

Which, again, brings us to the problem I see with disallowing the 5' step over the edge.

If there was an illusionary bridge from the current building to next that passed through that square, you'd allow the PC to 5' step to the bridge he thought was there - and then, at some point, he'd fall.

In other words, the PC can deliberately 5' step so long as he doesn't beleive he's going to fall. As soon as he believes that he's going to fall, however, he can't take the step?

That seems ... forced ... to me.

Similarly, would you disallow a PC from 5' stepping into an illusionary pit over otherwise normal ground?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Yes. An entangled area is not impassable terrain.

It's not impassable, but it reduces the movement and therefore disallows a 5ft-step. You cannot take a 5ft-step into an entangled area unless you are somehow immune to the speed-reducing effects.

Which, again, brings us to the problem I see with disallowing the 5' step over the edge.

I agree it's a problem. I see no abuse in allowing the 5ft-step, however, so I would personally houserule it being possible to take a 5ft-step over an edge. The one case in using it as an escape route IMO is not abuse, just a tactical use of terrain features.

But, strictly speaking, I don't think by RAW you can 5ft-step over an illusory floor.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But, strictly speaking, I don't think by RAW you can 5ft-step over an illusory floor.

Can you take a move action (without making a Jump check) to move over an illusory floor, if you have no fly speed?

-Hyp.

 

[SBMC]

Er, no, he doesn't. Jumping down requires a Jump check and can reduce the damage you take from the distance fallen.

Falling off a cliff means you don't get to make a Jump check and suffer full damage from the distance fallen.

In either case, you can get a Tumble check to reduce the damage taken.

Think about it - he is intentionally stepping off the cliff; that is not the same as "jumping down" which requires a move action (you can read this entire 4 page thread to see the arguments of that made).

The PC is trying to avoid the move action by "stepping off" the ledge. Then, you are saying he hits the ground (and gets the same tumble check as anyone who did "Jump Down" per the RAW) - so he gets a free move there. If he gets from the ledge to the ground after doing something intentionally to make that happen without being charged an action it is indeed a free action.

Intentionally being the key word there.

I had posted first a bit back on this thread about forcing the PC to take max damage - is that what you are talking about? If it si then I would say, as I did before, that that is perhaps a way to make it cost something.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Think about it - he is intentionally stepping off the cliff;

Yep.

that is not the same as "jumping down" which requires a move action (you can read this entire 4 page thread to see the arguments of that made).

Absolutely.

The PC is trying to avoid the move action by "stepping off" the ledge.

What move action?

Then, you are saying he hits the ground (and gets the same tumble check as anyone who did "Jump Down" per the RAW)

No. I'm saying he gets the same Tumble check - against DC 15 - to reduce falling damage that anyone who falls gets - including people who trigger pit traps, who are bull-rushed off of ledges, whose featherfall spells expire, and those who jump down from a height.

Anyone who is falling can make a Tumble check to reduce the distance fallen - for purposes of damage - by 10', once per jump, as a "free reaction."

It doesn't matter what causes you to fall, just that you do, in fact, fall.

What he doesn't get is the Jump check - against DC 15 - to reduce the damage calculation by another 10', because that requires a move action.

EDIT:

A series of examples, freshly edited :

Bob the Warrior (+6 Jump, N/A Tumble) jumps down off of a 20' cliff. It costs him a move action. He fails his Jump check, takes 1d6 points of normal damage, takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage, and falls prone.

Bob the Warrior (+6 Jump, N/A Tumble) jumps down off of a 20' cliff. It costs him a move action. He makes his Jump check, treats the fall as 10' shorter, and takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage.

Bob the Warrior (+6 Jump, N/A Tumble) is bull-rushed off off of a 20' cliff. He can do nothing to ameliorate his fall, takes 2d6 points of damage, and falls prone.

Bob the Warrior (+6 Jump, N/A Tumble) willingly falls off of a 20' cliff. He can do nothing to ameliorate his fall, takes 2d6 points of damage, and falls prone.

Phil the Rogue (+6 Jump, +6 Tumble) jumps down off of a 20' cliff. It costs him a move action. He fails his Jump check and his Tumble check, takes 1d6 points of normal damage, takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage, and falls prone.

Phil the Rogue (+6 Jump, +6 Tumble) jumps down off of a 20' cliff. It costs him a move action. He makes his Jump check but fails his Tumble check, treats the fall as 10' shorter, and takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage.

Phil the Rogue (+6 Jump, +6 Tumble) jumps down off of a 20' cliff. It costs him a move action. He fails his Jump check but makes his Tumble check, treats the fall as 10' shorter, takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage, and falls prone.

Phil the Rogue (+6 Jump, +6 Tumble) jumps down off of a 20' cliff. It costs him a move action. He makes his Jump check and his Tumble check, treats the fall as 10' shorter, and takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. (EDIT: As noted below, Jump and Tumble do not synergize in the way I thought they did.)

Phil the Rogue (+6 Jump, +6 Tumble) is bull-rushed off off of a 20' cliff. He can attempt a Tumble check to ameliorate his fall. If he fails, he takes 2d6 points of damage, and falls prone. If he succeeds, he takes 1d6 points of damage, and falls prone.

Phil the Rogue (+6 Jump, +6 Tumble) willingly falls off of a 20' cliff. He can attempt a Tumble check to ameliorate his fall. If he fails, he takes 2d6 points of damage, and falls prone. If he succeeds, he takes 1d6 points of damage, and falls prone.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Can you take a move action (without making a Jump check) to move over an illusory floor, if you have no fly speed?

-Hyp.

I don't see anything against that. You can take a move action to go anywhere you want. Whether or not you succeed is another matter. If the character want to take a move action straight up without a fly speed and Good+ maneuverability or Hover, I'd let him waste the action and rule that it fails. I mean, you can't walk through a wall, but nothing keeps you from trying.