Multiple 5ft steps?

I play with the rule as written to give the players the flexibility that the designers intended. If they move 5', and then move again, they suffer every attack of opportunity, retroactively if necessary, that they trigger.

There's something I'm still missing. You said earlier : "There is absolutely nothing in the rules to prevent a player from moving 5', making an attack, and then moving again. The rules explicitly allow this. This allows a player to move, make an attack, assess the situation and decide whether or not to move again, and then take whatever action they think is appropriate."

Do you allow Joe the 1st level Fighter to move 5', attack, and move again in the same round? Or only people with Haste, Spring Attack, or similar effects?

You say "the rules explicitly allow this"... do you mean in any situation, or just with a special effect like the examples above?

-Hyp.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Hypersmurf said:

Do you allow Joe the 1st level Fighter to move 5', attack, and move again in the same round? Or only people with Haste, Spring Attack, or similar effects?
It's only possible with a special effect (haste, Spring Attack, Shot On The Run, etc).
 


Well, I do have an excuse for omitting that originally! When your players are 19th to 21st level haste SEEMS like it is part of the core combat rules! ;)
 
Last edited:

Anything not contained within the rule book is a house rule. 90% of what you guys are presenting are simply that, house rules.

I'm afraid I still take issue with that.

I would say what have been presented are not house rules, but interpretations. There's a difference.

People haven't said "that doesn't work, I'll change it"... they've said "How does this work?"

For me, I find using the Rapid Shot example (which has turned up in a Sage Advice or FAQ entry, from memory) clarifies the way retroactivity works in 3E.

In similar fashion, if someone elected to use a double-move to withdraw from combat without provoking an AoO (first square unthreatened rule), and before covering their base move distance (say 30') found an unexpected situation - an invisible opponent, for instance... I would rule that they could take no action other than a Move (not MEA), or stopping.

If I allow them to change their mind and attack the invisible opponent, then the square they started in was threatened, the rogue they were retreating from did get an AoO, the rogue's Hamstring feat halved the character's movement rate, he never reached the invisible opponent and therefore didn't make an attack, in which case the rogue didn't get an AoO after all...

The Rapid Shot precedent says that one cannot alter one's intended actions mid-round if the alteration would retroactively affect actions that have already occurred.

With Haste you can move, attack, and then decide based on results to move again - as long as your initial move did not prevent any AoOs by being a 5'-movement-that-was-your-only-movement-for-the-round.

You can make a single attack and then choose whether or not to continue with a full attack - as long as nothing about your full attack would have modified that first attack roll.

You can move your speed, and then decide whether to continue moving or do something else - as long as you did not treat your initial square as unthreatened.

Thus is paradox avoided, and it's not House Rule, it's Rule Interpretation.

-Hyp.
 

In my game, the story is told AFTER the combat, not during. If a situation arises that cause retroactivity, that situation actually occured when it was supposed to, and the timeline is re-written to reflect that. The action becomes history rather than paradox.

House rule vs. Interpretation. I believe that any rule created to cover a situation not explicitly covered within the rule books is a house rule, or Rule 0.

The DMG offers the following...

* Look to any similar situation that is covered in a rulebook. Try to extrapolate from what you see presented there and apply it to the current circumstance.

* If you have to make something up, stick with it for the rest of the campaign. (This is called a house rule.) Consistency keeps players satisfied and gives them the feeling that they adventure in a stable, predictable universe and not is some random, non-sensical place subject only to the DM's whims.

In this case, I can find support for your position for extrapolation. The FAQ clearly advises that you not allow an action which would alter a previous action. If you use the FAQ, it is extrapolation, if you don't it's a house rule. :)
 
Last edited:

tburdett said:
In my game, the story is told AFTER the combat, not during. If a situation arises that cause retroactivity, that situation actually occured when it was supposed to, and the timeline is re-written to reflect that. The action becomes history rather than paradox.

Nice, but that's a HOUSE RULE as you put it.
 

The story is not a part of the game rules at all. With that in mind, there are no rules or house rules to govern it.
 
Last edited:

To Artoomis and Zhure.


I know you both get it. The example you posted Artoomis (I dont even remember which one) is very good. Well understood and helps me tons to explain to others.

Anyhow, Both of your fish and penguin replies are humurous, only one question...



What about the horse?

move on!
 

Remove ads

Top