Rethinking the 5' step rule

[Tetsubo]

Something occurred in my last game that has me rethinking the 5' step rule. I'm asking myself, how can a person move FIVE FEET and no longer be threatened by a someone with a weapon in their hand? At the risk of interjecting reality here... 21' is considered the threat range for a hand weapon by police. Within 21' a person with a weapon in hand can charge and attack a police officer before a holstered pistol can be drawn, brought to bear and fired. So how in Nine Hell's can taking one five foot step provide any form of protection? It sounds like something out of a Mel Brook's film. Has anyone else done away with the 5' rule? What were the consequences to your game?

 

[kreynolds]

...how can a person move FIVE FEET and no longer be threatened by a someone with a weapon in their hand?

Because unless you have a reach weapon, you only threaten an area within 5 feet of you.

Has anyone else done away with the 5' rule? What were the consequences to your game?

Nope, but you might ask in the house rules forum.

 

[AuraSeer]

Does the phrase "It's just a game" ring a bell?

You're playing a turn-based combat simulation. One of the artifacts of a pure turn-based system is that it's impossible to interrupt someone else's action. The AoO rules change this slightly, but for the sake of simplicity, they don't try cover every conceivable permutation of movement, placement, and reach.

If you want complete, accurate, anal-retentive realism, you're playing the wrong game.

 

[drnuncheon]

Within 21' a person with a weapon in hand can charge and attack a police officer before a holstered pistol can be drawn, brought to bear and fired.

Cop & perp roll initiative.
Perp wins, moves 30', hits flatfooted cop.

Maybe I'm not seeing the problem here.

J
aside from the cop getting hit, I mean

 

[Wormwood]

Technically, a cop should stay at least 30' from a criminal, as he could do a partial charge on the surprise round.

Sounds like the real world is broken.

(Not to mention that if the cop draws his gun, he can't fire it without getting AoO'ed by the knife wielding perp---unless he takes a 5' step back)

 

[argo]

So how in Nine Hell's can taking one five foot step provide any form of protection?

It doesn't, if it provided protection it would be giving an AC bonus. What it does is prevent the other guy from making an Attack of OPPORTUNITY. AOO's are supposed to represent quick strikes that occur outside of the attacker's initative, when the defender lets his guard down. There is no time for movement, thus the defender must already be in the attackers threatened space or no AOO. Thus a 5' step gets you out of the way of a potential AOO. When his next initative comes up the attacker is free to close the gap and continue beating the snot out of you which is what the police would consider his "threat range." That seems fine to me.

And if that doesn't convince you then I second AuraSeer, "its just a game"

 

[CRGreathouse]

Two people in adjacent nondiagonal squares are an average of 5 feet apart. Moving 5 feet back increases this to 10 feet away.

I don't think that it's unrealistic to deny attack of opportunity from someone wielding a non-reach weapon when they have 10 feet between them.

 

[Darklone]

To answer your question: No, it's not realistic that in the middle of a swordfight your enemy steps 5ft back and casts a spell. Oops, a spell? Hehehe. How realistic. Sorry.

Let's take an archer. No, the 5ft step back and firing 5 arrows is not realistic. If you don't like it, use rule 0 and go to houserules (don't stay in prison and go straight back to Start.) Experience with such a rule? I tried it. It's funny

 

[Ranger REG]

Something occurred in my last game that has me rethinking the 5' step rule. I'm asking myself, how can a person move FIVE FEET and no longer be threatened by a someone with a weapon in their hand?

By this you mean, why can't you get a free AoO on that person for just stepping away? We've seen this in many movies, where one opponent step back and lure the other opponent to go on the offensive.

At the risk of interjecting reality here... 21' is considered the threat range for a hand weapon by police. Within 21' a person with a weapon in hand can charge and attack a police officer before a holstered pistol can be drawn, brought to bear and fired. So how in Nine Hell's can taking one five foot step provide any form of protection? It sounds like something out of a Mel Brook's film. Has anyone else done away with the 5' rule? What were the consequences to your game?

It doesn't, unless the policeman forget his training and not Ready his Action on a possible perp making the wrong move.

Remember, Ready an Action can be an enemy against 5-foot steps. Also, the combat is abstract and sequential but easier to resolve whereas PC games can resolve a lot of things instantly to make combat more real-time.

 

[Murrdox]

One of my players didn't like this rule either.

HIS interpretation of it was even stupider, since he thought that whether or not you could take a 5' step back depended on what you were going to do AFTER you took the step.

Blah blah blah blah and a lot of "it doesn't make sense!" lines later.

Finally we came up with a house rule that if you're going to take a 5' step away from someone who's threatening you, and you're going to do something that would NORMALLY provoke an attack of opportunity, then both combatants have to make opposed reflex saves. If the one backing away wins, then he gets to back away without an AoO. Otherwise, he sucks one.

Needless to say, I wasn't the DM when this house rule was being used. Fortunately it rarely came up, and it mattered even LESS often.

As soon as the DMs torch was passed to me once more, we axed this rule, and now that the player who was complaining about it is playing a Cleric, I see him delighting in his 5' steps without saying a word about it.