Feat Problems With PHB II

[KarinsDad]

This is wrong. Immediate actions taken when it is not your turn always apply to your next turn's limit, not the previous turn. Essentially, it is at the end of your turn that your immediate/swift action counter is reset.

You never have to worry about movement on your turn interfering with your ability to use this feat - it can only interfere with what you do on your next turn, and that's assuming you treat the movement from this feat as a normal 5 foot step.

It is called a 5 foot step, so it is one. If they had meant 5 feet of movement, they would have said so.

You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can't take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round when you move any distance.

Just because swift actions and immediate actions reset immediately after your turn in the round does not mean that the 5' step resets immediately after your turn in the round.

The 5' step resets on the next round and is a round based game mechanic, not an end of turn based game mechanic. Granted, with the introduction of immediate actions and the introduction of non-spells as immediate actions, it makes sense that they should change the 5' step rule as well. But, they have not done that yet TMK.

Now, if you have some Immediate Action rules that change the core 5' step game mechanic, I'm willing to listen.

 

[IanB]

It is called a 5 foot step, so it is one. If they had meant 5 feet of movement, they would have said so.



Just because swift actions and immediate actions reset immediately after your turn in the round does not mean that the 5' step resets immediately after your turn in the round.

The 5' step resets on the next round and is a round based game mechanic, not an end of turn based game mechanic. Granted, with the introduction of immediate actions and the introduction of non-spells as immediate actions, it makes sense that they should change the 5' step rule as well. But, they have not done that yet TMK.

Now, if you have some Immediate Action rules that change the core 5' step game mechanic, I'm willing to listen.

Sorry, I didn't realize there was anyone left who actually used the beginning/end of the game round as a criteria for anything. I honestly thought that all went out the window with 3.5...

EDIT: I highly recommend changing to a house rule if the real rules do indeed work the way you describe them still. It makes almost everything much simpler, the single exception being tracking when durations end after someone delays or readies an action.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sorry, I didn't realize there was anyone left who actually used the beginning/end of the game round as a criteria for anything.

The rules are written this way. Lots of people modify the rules for convenience, but this is a rules forum.

I honestly thought that all went out the window with 3.5...

EDIT: I highly recommend changing to a house rule if the real rules do indeed work the way you describe them still. It makes almost everything much simpler, the single exception being tracking when durations end after someone delays or readies an action.

Actually, beginning and end of round are not used to "tracking when durations end after someone delays or readies an action". Initiative within the round is used to track that. Otherwise, your Wizard's one round duration spell affects everybody if cast at the beginning of the round and nobody if cast at the end of the round. There is a difference between a duration of a round and something that happens once per round.

There are, however, other areas of the game where beginning and end of round are tracked (at least if one is going to follow the rules), but there are not many of them.

For example: Newcomers to combat. There are two rules here that apply to the beginning of the round. One, all newcomers come into combat at the beginning of the round. Two, if the newcomer is aware of the combat, then it's initiative is also at the beginning of the round.

Attacks of Opportunity is another example. You can only make one per round. Not "only one since your last turn".

I do not as a DM follow these rules, but they are still 3.5 rules.

 

[IanB]

I don't have my books in front of me, but I could swear in 3.5 'once per round' reset at your action, not at round beginning/end.

I'll have to research I guess. If you're right (and I don't have any real reason to doubt you other than me probably confusing age-old house rules with real rules) then that seems like a major oversight in the conversion to 3.5.

Using round beginning/end for almost anything is dumb design.


EDIT: Actually, from the SRD:

For almost all purposes, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round. A round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last, but it usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on.

To me the implication for AOOs, etc., is that they do reset on a character's turn, not at the end of the round. Only if something is explicitly called out as happening at the beginning/end of a round would it apply, in the face of that text, it seems to me.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

To me the implication for AOOs, etc., is that they do reset on a character's turn, not at the end of the round. Only if something is explicitly called out as happening at the beginning/end of a round would it apply, in the face of that text, it seems to me.

I believe that is correct, as well.

 

[KarinsDad]

To me the implication for AOOs, etc., is that they do reset on a character's turn, not at the end of the round. Only if something is explicitly called out as happening at the beginning/end of a round would it apply, in the face of that text, it seems to me.

This is perfectly reasonable interpretation of that text. Newcomers to Combat explicitly start at the beginning of the round, so they an exception to that rule.

Btw, Immediate Actions reset after your turn. Everything else in the game (with this interpretation of the rules you quoted and using the phrase "initiative count" to mean beginning of turn) resets at the beginning of your turn. Just another example of Immediate Actions not really being well thought out. IMO.

If they both worked the same, then we would not have had the discussion on 5' steps.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The Fighter and Rogue only both get the flank bonus if the order of initiative (either initially or contrived by Delay) is Opponent, Rogue, Fighter since the Rogue will be the one moving.

The Fighter is not guaranteed a flanking bonus. The Rogue is.

No, he isn't. If the order is as you say it, then the order is equivalent to Fighter, Monster, Rogue - and the Monster can move away from the Fighter before the Rogue attacks it. Thus, no flanking, and thus, only +1 vs. an equivalently stat-ed Fighter - and the Rogue doesn't get his Sneak Attack damage, to boot.

In short, arguing about "who's flanking whom" doesn't get you anywhere.

Practically guaranteeing once per round SA damage (with the proper type of foes) is not weak.

Of course it isn't weak. I never said it was. I did, however, say that it isn't blatantly overpowered, like you're claiming it is.

No, you do not. The specific rule only overrides the general rule if it explicitly states that it does.

Please provide a rules quote for that position.

The rule is that specific rules override general rules. By virtue of the fact that there is a specific rule (take a 5' step when X happens), it implicitly overrides the general rule (you can only take a 5' step under the following circumstances).

It's bad enough that they became part of spells. In fact, there is a "Adjudicating Immediate Actions" question on the forum right now due to it not being clear.

There's also been "How do you calculate multiclass BAB?", "How many ranks can I have in skill X (which is class for one of my classes, and cross-class for the other)?", and others.

Just because someone is asking a question doesn't mean the rules are necessarily unclear.

Most of the immediate action spells have a duration of one round. A one round spell is crippled compared to a normal spell.

Like, say, True Strike?

The fact of the matter is "crippled" is completely subjective - just like "stupid."

So, WotC will start adding rules and dice rolls to determine whose Immediate Actions go first, etc.

Yeah - I believe they call it "Initiative," or perhaps "Dexterity modifier."

And, actually, we have the same problem nowadays: readied actions. Three archers ready an attack action to shoot the enemy wizard when he starts casting a spell. Whose arrow hits first?

Actually, you are confusing me with someone else. To my knowledge, I've never discussed CC. But, it makes sense to take Skill Focus Concentration before ever taking CC.

I'm pretty sure that, at some point, you've recommended SF(Con) over CC for exactly the reasoning stated. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I don't believe I am.

So, how does your stance above reconcile to your opinion about Leap of the Heavens?

 

[KarinsDad]

Please provide a rules quote for that position.

The rule is that specific rules override general rules. By virtue of the fact that there is a specific rule (take a 5' step when X happens), it implicitly overrides the general rule (you can only take a 5' step under the following circumstances).

Yes, specific rules do override general rules, however, you do not have a specific rule that overrides the general rule in this case.

You have a new rule that says you can Take a 5' step and hide in a given circumstance. This does not mean that you can do this if it is disallowed by a general rule.

For example, you cannot take the 5' step with the immediate action if you are Paralyzed.

You cannot take the 5' step if you are Prone.

You cannot take the 5' step if you have already moved in the round.

You cannot take the 5' step if you have already taken a 5' step in the round.

You cannot take the 5' step if you are surrounded by difficult terrain.

The specific rule does not override any of these general rules because it does not state that it does. It merely states what you can do if you meet the conditions and by default, no other rule prevents it.

I'm pretty sure that, at some point, you've recommended SF(Con) over CC for exactly the reasoning stated. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I don't believe I am.

I've already told you that I do not recall discussing that topic or having that opinion. Since you are purposely claiming that I am a liar with your response here, I'll just ignore you until you want to talk more about rules and less about others here (and that includes the snarky attitude). Bye.

 

[irdeggman]

Yes, specific rules do override general rules, however, you do not have a specific rule that overrides the general rule in this case.

You have a new rule that says you can Take a 5' step and hide in a given circumstance. This does not mean that you can do this if it is disallowed by a general rule.

You've lost me here.

A rule for a specific circumstance is what is being talked about. That is a specific rule and it does override the general rule when it applies. In this case it applies for the specific circumstance correct?

For example, you cannot take the 5' step with the immediate action if you are Paralyzed.

Not applicable to the specific circumstance the feat applies to correct?

You cannot take the 5' step if you are Prone.

Again not applicable to the specific circumstance in question.

You cannot take the 5' step if you have already moved in the round.

Ditto

You cannot take the 5' step if you have already taken a 5' step in the round.

Again, not applicable to the circumstances the feat applies to.

You cannot take the 5' step if you are surrounded by difficult terrain.

Also not applicable to the specific conditions of the feat.

The specific rule does not override any of these general rules because it does not state that it does. It merely states what you can do if you meet the conditions and by default, no other rule prevents it.

I don't see how this applies to the case in point. I mean that is the entire concept of a "specific rule" it applies to specific conditions and not "general" ones.

 

[glass]

"Buy our new book and you will be much stronger then the other gamers and your DM because now we print the REAL feats and not the wimpy stuff used in earlier books.

(Emphasis mine)

Huh? All the feats in the world can't make you stronger than your DM!


glass.