POLL: Extra 5'-Step for Haste?

[Artoomis]

This is just a poll, this topic has been discussed near to death and I'm just collecting the results now.

Things to consider, if you haven't made up your mind:

You might want to consider extra partial action from Haste to be totally independant from the regular actions, in which case you'd allow an extra 5'-step.

The official FAQ says you get one 5'-step per round. (But this is in the the context of explaining Supreme Cleave)

Without the FAQ the rule could be interpreted either way.

Please don't take this thread into a big discussion. Another thread exists for that.

5'-Step Discussion

Please add additional one sentance things to consider if you like.

 

[Number47]

Artoomis, both your poll questions and your post are heavily slanted. By calling the 5 foot step "extra", you are implying that it is not allowed. Also, the FAQ rule that you are quoting so much is about Supreme Cleave, in which the answer is that Supreme Cleave does not give you a five-foot step beyond what is normally allowed. The question is not answered all that clearly, even in the FAQ, although you can make an argument for it.

 

[Artoomis]

Artoomis, both your poll questions and your post are heavily slanted. By calling the 5 foot step "extra", you are implying that it is not allowed. Also, the FAQ rule that you are quoting so much is about Supreme Cleave, in which the answer is that Supreme Cleave does not give you a five-foot step beyond what is normally allowed. The question is not answered all that clearly, even in the FAQ, although you can make an argument for it.

You really think the word "extra" is slanted? Everything about the Haste spell is extra - it's an extra partial action, after all. Plus I needed to make it clear that we are talking about an extra 5'-step, not just the single one you usually get without Haste. In this case, I am using "extra" as a technical term.

Fair point about the FAQ, the rule is stated clearly and unambiguously, but in the context of explaining Supreme Cleave. I'm not sure if that makes a difference, but in the interest of full disclosure, I admit that's the way it is. I overlooked it because I took somone else's quote and did not check for context. Apporpriate editing of the first post will be done forthwith.

 

[Xahn'Tyr]

Without the FAQ the rule could be interpreted either way.

But since there IS a FAQ, it can only be interpreted one way? So we're obviously wrong if we don't agree with you? Wow, nice unbaised poll there Art. Not hard to see which way you'd vote on this one.

 

[Crothian]

Since the books say only one 5ft mover per round, I think it's pretty simple. If there was an exception to this rule it would be in print.

 

[Artoomis]

But since there IS a FAQ, it can only be interpreted one way? So we're obviously wrong if we don't agree with you? Wow, nice unbaised poll there Art. Not hard to see which way you'd vote on this one.

Sheesh, wasn't I clear enough? The FAQ clearly states only one 5'-step per round, but does so in the context of explaining Supreme Cleave. (Full disclosure) You can look at it any way you want, I did make sure to mention its context.

If you disregard the FAQ the answer is not so clear.

I intentionally put the the "Yes" answer first in the poll to help avoid my own personal opinion, which I expressed in that other thread.

I also stated these were a few things to consider, and to feel free to add your own one-sentance items for people to consider - do you have anything constructive to add, or are you only attacking today?

 

[KarinsDad]

Since the books say only one 5ft mover per round, I think it's pretty simple. If there was an exception to this rule it would be in print.

Except that the books don't say that.

 

[Artoomis]

Except that the books don't say that.

True enough, or there would be no issue. I should've piped in on that one, I guess, to preserve some sense of impartiality. Oh, well.

I imagine Crothian has done what some other have done and assumed that the books state "one 5'-move per round" when, in fact, the rules at most imply that (was that statement neutral enough to statisfy my critics, I wonder).

Thus the poll

 

[Xahn'Tyr]

What would have been a good poll, would have been something very brief, like:

"In your opinion, is a character allowed to take two 5ft steps when Hasted?"

We all know the issues and aguments from the other thread, restating (only) your view on the matter here just skews the results. Not a big deal really, but I would have been interested to see the results of an unbiased poll on this issue. In fact, I'd like to see polls on many of the ambiguous issues we've discussed, and I am hoping that by pointing out the problems with this one, we can avoid repeating them in the future.


Anyway, the poll was a great idea. The implementation could have used a little work. Nothing personal.

 

[EOL]

What if we assume for the moment that the answer isn't somewhere in the rules? At that point it seems we would have to resort to different criteria to decide how to rule, a couple of different criteria are:

1- Design: In other words what was the designers intent when they designed haste the way they did and how does a 5 ft. step fit into that?

2- Balance: how does ruling one way or the other affect game balance?

Just trying to peek out of the box...