Multiple 5ft steps?

[Artoomis]

Which one?

This one, where he corrects himself:

Absolutely. So there's a caveat that once you invoke a 5-step, you're done doing any moves, though you can still do MEA's.

GReg

 

[Zhure]

This one, where he corrects himself:

It wasn't a correction, it was an obvious expansion. My prior statement was just as true then as it is now.

"So if for some reason you take a second 5-foot step, like if you were hasted, this second 5-foot step wouldn't be a protected one because it wouldn't be "your entire move for the round."

Obviously the first five-foot step would no longer be protected either. It seemed so obvious it wasn't worth mentioning until I was told it was incorrect... so I thought it best to elaborate.

Greg

 

[Artoomis]

It wasn't a correction, it was an obvious expansion. My prior statement was just as true then as it is now.

"So if for some reason you take a second 5-foot step, like if you were hasted, this second 5-foot step wouldn't be a protected one because it wouldn't be "your entire move for the round."

Obviously the first five-foot step would no longer be protected either. It seemed so obvious it wasn't worth mentioning until I was told it was incorrect... so I thought it best to elaborate.

Greg

If you take a second five-foot step as you say, then NEITHER one was a five-foot step, but BOTH were, in fact, 5 feet of regular movement, which mean you made two moves. It certainly is possible to move only 5 feet, take an action, and then move 5 feet as your partial move from haste, if that's what you want to do.

It's absolutely not possible to take two 5-foot steps that do not count against your actions - that is, they would count as movement actions.

A 5-foot step:

Does not count as movement.
Does not provoke a movement-based AoO.
Can be made only once per round.

Any attempt to make a second "5-foot step" would either not happen or invalidate the first one and change your actions in the round since you would have made two move actions.

Clear? Or not?

 

[Zhure]

I think you're reading too much into my example.

I am saying fish swim in water.

You're saying penguins swim in water and aren't fish.

I never said penguins were fish.

You keep pointing out that penguins swim.

Greg

 

[Artoomis]

I think you're reading too much into my example.

I am saying fish swim in water.

You're saying penguins swim in water and aren't fish.

I never said penguins were fish.

You keep pointing out that penguins swim.

Greg

No...

Your example say "..if for some reason you take a second 5-foot step..."

I'm clarifying that you can't start anything with a sentence like and follow the rules as it is not possible to take a second 5-foot step.

Your sentence could lead folks to think they can take a second 5-foot step.

Or, to use your fish:

I say fish can swim.

You say fish can swim. You go on to say:

"If fish could fly..."

I jump in right there and say - forget the rest, fish can't fly.

(Edit - not counting flying fish, okay?)

 

[Zhure]

...and you're still doing it.

If fish could fly they'd still be fish and still follow the rules for fish.

You keep saying fish aren't penguins. I don't give a rat about penguins.

Realizing that someone who couldn't understand the word 'if' I offered an expansion that everyone else already understood.
Greg

 

[Artoomis]

It wasn't a correction, it was an obvious expansion. My prior statement was just as true then as it is now.

"So if for some reason you take a second 5-foot step, like if you were hasted, this second 5-foot step wouldn't be a protected one because it wouldn't be "your entire move for the round."

Obviously the first five-foot step would no longer be protected either. It seemed so obvious it wasn't worth mentioning until I was told it was incorrect... so I thought it best to elaborate.

Greg

More to the point, the first step would not be a special "5-foot step" at all, it would be 5 feet of normal movement, as would the second 5 feet of movement.

Better? Or do you disagree with that?

 

[Zhure]

More to the point, the first step would not be a special "5-foot step" at all, it would be 5 feet of normal movement, as would the second 5 feet of movement.

Better? Or do you disagree with that?

Of course, the first "5-ft step" would no longer qualify as a 5-ft step either because of the rule I cited from page 117.

Greg

 

[Artoomis]

Of course, the first "5-ft step" would no longer qualify as a 5-ft step either because of the rule I cited from page 117.

Greg

Thank you.

I think you did not understand that some folks use the page 117 rule to arrive at the conclusion that more than one 5-foot step is possible, they wouold jsut not avoid the AoO.

The net effect of the flawed logic is to allow an action, a MEA a partial action plus two "free" 5-foot moves from haste that do not avoid AoOs - gaining an extra, free 10 foot of movement. I see now that you did not think this way, it only appeared so.

 

[Li Shenron]

No, that's wrong. You only avoid an AoO if the only move you make in a round is your 5-foot step. If that's all you do, then you are not using a Move action at all.

I agree of course! I'm sorry, I was only trying to say that if e.g. you attack and move, but as a regular move you move only 5ft you don't provoke AoO. The meaning of my example was that it's not only "the 5ft step you get when you don't move at all" that doesn't provoka AoO... Now that I think, you can say you're giving up the regular move for a 5ft step, it's the same.

However, for example you can't turn a double move into 2 5ft steps to avoid AoO, at most you get the "1st square discount" if you only move... I should have thought better before posting