Rules for 5' Step

[aycarus]

Hi all,

I've recently run into a situation whereby a character and his opponent are engaged in secluded 1 on 1 combat (no distractions around them or anything). In this situation, the character found himself in need of drinking a potion and so decided to take a 5' step out of the opponent's threat range in order to avoid the attack of opportunity. If this was realistic combat, I'd assume that even if drinking a potion only required 6 seconds that it would be absurd to perceive that his opponent would relent for long enough to even allow that (even if his opponent had already taken his action for the turn).

I've heard a "justification" for this saying that there would be gaps in combat long enough to allow such an action, but I cannot perceive this as legitimate - especially if the character had both hands occupied at the time.

Thoughts?

~ Ayc

 

[Mistwell]

Hi all,

I've recently run into a situation whereby a character and his opponent are engaged in secluded 1 on 1 combat (no distractions around them or anything). In this situation, the character found himself in need of drinking a potion and so decided to take a 5' step out of the opponent's threat range in order to avoid the attack of opportunity. If this was realistic combat, I'd assume that even if drinking a potion only required 6 seconds that it would be absurd to perceive that his opponent would relent for long enough to even allow that (even if his opponent had already taken his action for the turn).

I've heard a "justification" for this saying that there would be gaps in combat long enough to allow such an action, but I cannot perceive this as legitimate - especially if the character had both hands occupied at the time.

Thoughts?

~ Ayc

In my opinion you are looking for too high a level or realism. In reality, opponants occupy the same space at the same time MOST of the time. Grapples are not uncommon, but the norm (even in a sword fight). Use of obstructions in the room is common place, not rare (like knocking a chair into an opponant to gain a few seconds of movement on them - how often does THAT happen in your game?), etc...

Of course it is not realistic that an opponant would let you step 5 feet away to drink a potion. Heck, pick a line 10 feet from where you are right now. Now tell me you would let someone move THAT far away without moving towards them at the same time.

Combat in D&D is an abstraction, and this is just one of those things you have to live with. If it's not enough realism, then at some point you will drift into facing rules, and then it's downhill to GURPS from there.

 

[dcollins]

I've heard a "justification" for this saying that there would be gaps in combat long enough to allow such an action, but I cannot perceive this as legitimate - especially if the character had both hands occupied at the time.

Most of what you say is allowed under the D&D rules. However, if the character's hands are in fact full, then you certainly can't pull out a potion and drink it. You'd need to free a hand by dropping or loosing something.

 

[Hypersmurf]

However, if the character's hands are in fact full, then you certainly can't pull out a potion and drink it. You'd need to free a hand by dropping or loosing something.

Unless he's wearing one of those sipper-hats...

-Hyp.

 

[aycarus]

In my opinion you are looking for too high a level or realism. In reality, opponants occupy the same space at the same time MOST of the time. Grapples are not uncommon, but the norm (even in a sword fight). Use of obstructions in the room is common place, not rare (like knocking a chair into an opponant to gain a few seconds of movement on them - how often does THAT happen in your game?), etc...

Of course it is not realistic that an opponant would let you step 5 feet away to drink a potion. Heck, pick a line 10 feet from where you are right now. Now tell me you would let someone move THAT far away without moving towards them at the same time.

It is a fairly high level of realism, but it seems too often that this particular rule is abused. Occassional abuses of reality are usually acceptable, but when it becomes a matter of consistency...

I've talked to some people about this and may propose the following alteration to the rules:

If character A is "directed" towards character B who is taking a 5' step away from character A, character A may then "push forward" and instantly take a 5' step towards character B, assuming he has not already performed a 5' step this round. Such an action on the part of character A then provokes an attack of opportunity if he moves out of an opponent's threat range.

Admittedly, this would remove situations where a caster takes a five foot step backwards to cast a spell... but if a caster found himself in a combat situation where he was going 1 on 1 with a fighter, I think it would be legitimate to disallow the aforementioned "abuse."

 

[Hypersmurf]

I've talked to some people about this and may propose the following alteration to the rules:

If you're looking at a house rule, why not just say "A 5' step that results in leaving a threatened square provokes an AoO"?

-Hyp.

 

[HeavyG]

If you're looking at a house rule, why not just say "A 5' step that results in leaving a threatened square provokes an AoO"?

If you're going to do that, you might as well remove the 5' step altogether. Its whole purpose is to avoid AoOs.

Also, for this reason, I'd hardly call what the player did in the initial post as "abuse".

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you're going to do that, you might as well remove the 5' step altogether. Its whole purpose is to avoid AoOs.

And it's avoiding AoOs that the poster considers abusive

I personally have no problem with the 5' step as written.

-Hyp.

 

[Vrecknidj]

It seems that the problem isn't with the 5-foot step, per se, but with the combat rules overall. It looks like perhaps the combat rules, while flexible and wide-ranging, might not adequately cover man-on-man combat to the degree you'd like.

I suggest coming up with man-on-man combat rules that showcase the kinds of realism you'd prefer, and then telling your players that these new rules will take effect whenever there is a man-on-man situation (albeit not a man-on-man sub-situation, within a broader combat scene).

Doing that, however, might be quite a task.

Dave

 

[aycarus]

My original problem with it is the fact that when combining these two rules, it seems to make the rule of provoking an AoO as a consequence of casting a spell / reading a scroll / drinking a potion meaningless except in situations where:

a) the character doing so has his back to a wall or
b) the character doing so has his back to an enemy