Sage Answer: Haste & 5ft Step(s)
- Thread starter Xahn'Tyr
- Start date
Virago
First Post
Re: the Sage's response.
As dcollins said, we already knew this. A bit strange to see people acting like this is a new piece of information.
Artoomis said:
Let's try and not repeat that whole debate here, shall we?
But then you go ahead and do it anyway, but of course without any acknowledgement of another side or why your side might be wrong...
I came to the conclusion that 5-foot steps are not tied to actions in any way whatsoever, but are tied to rounds.
"In any way whatsoever" goes way too far.
The fact that they are talked about in the action descriptions and show up on the action tables points more towards the reading that they have lots and lots to do with actions.
An example of something actually tied to rounds and not actions would be the taking of AoOs.
My reading is that 5' steps is essentially a movement action. Before you start quoting, when the glossary says it "does not count as a move in combat," what it is referring to is how it is movement but does consume ("count as") a movement action, so you can do MEA+step+attack. It's not trying to vault them to some special status as non-moves. The fact that it mentions a way they are not like normal movement points to the idea that in most other ways, they are.
And obviously haste grants/allows/permits/unlocks extra movement in a round as well as extra actions, making some of the uses of the word "round" in the PHB either obviously incorrect or open to question.
Which, by the way, seems to be the actual main issue.
It's clear (to me, at least) that the rules that state which actions allow a 5-foot move are merely clarifications of the general rule...
Now you are getting into a more interpretive argument, where you are seeking to understand what the rules as written are trying to express. In this case, I don't think you can reject the idea that the PHB is not very good in the haste/round area.
In other words, I hope you're not trying to turn your technical, literal argument into "what the rules really mean to say is ... "
As dcollins said, we already knew this. A bit strange to see people acting like this is a new piece of information.
Artoomis said:
Let's try and not repeat that whole debate here, shall we?
But then you go ahead and do it anyway, but of course without any acknowledgement of another side or why your side might be wrong...
I came to the conclusion that 5-foot steps are not tied to actions in any way whatsoever, but are tied to rounds.
"In any way whatsoever" goes way too far.
The fact that they are talked about in the action descriptions and show up on the action tables points more towards the reading that they have lots and lots to do with actions.
An example of something actually tied to rounds and not actions would be the taking of AoOs.
My reading is that 5' steps is essentially a movement action. Before you start quoting, when the glossary says it "does not count as a move in combat," what it is referring to is how it is movement but does consume ("count as") a movement action, so you can do MEA+step+attack. It's not trying to vault them to some special status as non-moves. The fact that it mentions a way they are not like normal movement points to the idea that in most other ways, they are.
And obviously haste grants/allows/permits/unlocks extra movement in a round as well as extra actions, making some of the uses of the word "round" in the PHB either obviously incorrect or open to question.
Which, by the way, seems to be the actual main issue.
It's clear (to me, at least) that the rules that state which actions allow a 5-foot move are merely clarifications of the general rule...
Now you are getting into a more interpretive argument, where you are seeking to understand what the rules as written are trying to express. In this case, I don't think you can reject the idea that the PHB is not very good in the haste/round area.
In other words, I hope you're not trying to turn your technical, literal argument into "what the rules really mean to say is ... "
The same people who have problem with this also probably have a problem with backing off 60' being safe but RUNNING back 120' being AoO bait no dex bonus.
This is ONLY a contradiction if one misses the most important aspect of the 5' step.
The 5' step is a "maneuver." It is a cautious move which has benefits at the expense of distance.
The 5' step is not the first 5' of your movement but rather is a maneuver during a round to shift position SLIGHTLY while not lowering one's guard.
Comparing the "5' step maneuver" to the "first 5' of movement" we find that the 5' step maneuver has ADVANTAGES... specifically it does not expose you to AoOs.
In order to gain that AoO coverage you give up the rest of your movement potential, PERIOD.
That's what is called a trade off. A "give something to get something" as opposed to the "get something for nothing."
Those who dream of fooling someone into thinking the 5' step is actually just "the first 5' of my movement" simply do not want to have to pay the piper for their AoO resistance.
Would i allow someone hasted to move 5' as their partial action, swing and then move again sure... but that inital 5' move would not be considered a "5' step" for purposes of the AoO resistance BECAUSE it was not their only move in the round. There is no rule preventing you from only moving 5'. There is a rule/ruling making the free action 5' step AoO resistant thing your only move for the round.
This is ONLY a contradiction if one misses the most important aspect of the 5' step.
The 5' step is a "maneuver." It is a cautious move which has benefits at the expense of distance.
The 5' step is not the first 5' of your movement but rather is a maneuver during a round to shift position SLIGHTLY while not lowering one's guard.
Comparing the "5' step maneuver" to the "first 5' of movement" we find that the 5' step maneuver has ADVANTAGES... specifically it does not expose you to AoOs.
In order to gain that AoO coverage you give up the rest of your movement potential, PERIOD.
That's what is called a trade off. A "give something to get something" as opposed to the "get something for nothing."
Those who dream of fooling someone into thinking the 5' step is actually just "the first 5' of my movement" simply do not want to have to pay the piper for their AoO resistance.
Would i allow someone hasted to move 5' as their partial action, swing and then move again sure... but that inital 5' move would not be considered a "5' step" for purposes of the AoO resistance BECAUSE it was not their only move in the round. There is no rule preventing you from only moving 5'. There is a rule/ruling making the free action 5' step AoO resistant thing your only move for the round.
Caliban said:
IceBear
Explorer
Albereth said:
Actually, if I remember the thread on this recently, it was pointed out that the Sage had answered the same as this time once before then stated what you apparently have. This means he has answered the same way 2 out of 3 times for a clear majority thus making this the correct answer (for now)Now if someone keeps asking him every couple of months we could keep a running total and after a year see which way is answered more times but then the ones who believe it to be the other way would not think it is correct. Ah well such is life :shrug:
For me it is just a matter of how the 5' are moved. If the person states he is taking a 5' step then that is all he gets during the round hasted or not. If he moves 5 feet then he is subject to AoOs and can continue to move in later partials as long as none of them are AoO avoidance 5' steps.
Albereth
Actually, he answered that you could take two 5-ft steps *first*. The last two times he was asked, he answered with the answer from page 1. I guess someone else told him he was wrong so now he's sticking with this answer. It would have been nice if he had acknowledged his original position and explained why he changed his mind.
I do know the difference between a 5-ft step and moving 5 feet, and I have no issues with the AoO thing that seemed to come up at the end of the other thread. It was just easier for us to allow a 5ft step with the extra partial action and it didn't seem to unbalance anything in our group, but if that's not to be allowed, I wouldn't have any difficulty playing it that way either.
IceBear
Uller
Adventurer
Cloudgatherer said:
Niether of your points mentioned MEAs in any way. A partial action is more than an MEA(you can normally take two MEAs or an MEA and a partial action in a round. You cannot normally take two partial actions in a round).
Many on the "Haste grants an extra 5' step" side of the fence say the one-per-round rule for 5' steps(PHB p. 121 under MEAs) ONLY applies to 5' steps as part of MEAs and not as part of partial actions. Logically, this makes no sense since an MEA is smaller than a partial action. IMO, if you can't move, draw a weapon and take a 5' step, then you can't move, (ready a partial action), take a 5' step and attack(after the trigger). There is at least on general partial action where you cannot take a 5' step after moving...I see no where in the rules that gives the haste partial action an exception to this.
The other portion of the "pro-haste-grants-extra-5'-step" camp seems to be saying that the partial action from haste is seperate from the character's normal round and/or wasn't considered very well when rounds were constructed. Neither of these arguements can be countered with anything other than contradiction...."Yes it was...no it wasn't...yes it was...no it wasn't..." so arguing against it is pointless.
If you see the extra partial action from haste as a sort of pseudo round, then no logic anyone can present can dissuade you...nor should it. I don't think an extra 5' step is going to throw the game totally into a tail spin, but it gives an already powerful spell even more punch and that is why I think one 5' step, per round, ever, period is a sound rule for my game and is probably what the designers intended(but I'm no psychic and they worded this rule rather poorly).
IceBear
Explorer
I don't see how allowing a second 5-ft step makes Haste *SO* much more powerful. You can't use the partial action to make a FRA, so it's not going to let you take two of them a round.
The only time I can see taking two 5-ft steps as being helpful is to step back (or forward) through a creature with reach threatened area. To me, that's a waste of being hasted
and as such a balance.
IceBear
The only time I can see taking two 5-ft steps as being helpful is to step back (or forward) through a creature with reach threatened area. To me, that's a waste of being hasted
and as such a balance.IceBear
Just to toss out some more information, the e-mail address on the "Sage" answer I got shows it coming from "David Eckelberry [David.Eckelberry@wizards.com]". So maybe other people are helping Skip Williams out, and they don't all have the same interpretation?
I don't know. I was doing the dual 5ft step thing before, but after getting this email I feel obliged to limit it to one per round unless I see an erratta (which I don't expect too). Haste still has come minor usefulness even without the extra 5ft step
I don't know. I was doing the dual 5ft step thing before, but after getting this email I feel obliged to limit it to one per round unless I see an erratta (which I don't expect too). Haste still has come minor usefulness even without the extra 5ft step
Uller
Adventurer
I wouldn't say it makes it SO much more powerful. Especially if you only allow one to prevent AoOs. It just gives a little more punch to an already very powerful spell(Dispel Magic and Haste were the favorite 3rd level spells in a recent poll, IIRC).
It allows an extra attack at full bonus or an extra 1 action spell or allows you to complete a full-round spell at the end of your turn, or activate a magic item... Very powerful. It is always my first 3rd level spell.
Anyway...if I were a designer and I wanted to create 5' steps as I believe the designers intended, this is what I would have done:
First off, I would remove all references to 5' steps that are already in the PHB. Then I would have added a paragraph that defines 5' steps in the following way:
The 5' step:
Definition: A 5' step is a small adjustment in position that does not count as a move.
When: A 5' step may be taken either before or after any action(partial, full-round, standard, free, MEA) if the character has moved no actual distance for the round and is not otherwise restricted from moving. Only one 5' step may be taken per round.
Benefits: A 5' step never provokes an AoO.
Restrictions: After a 5' step is taken, the character may not move again for the rest of the round. (YMMV, with this one...IMO, I think this is what they meant even though it is stated no where in the PHB...it prevents taking a 5' step to escape an AoO then moving then doing something else).
It allows an extra attack at full bonus or an extra 1 action spell or allows you to complete a full-round spell at the end of your turn, or activate a magic item... Very powerful. It is always my first 3rd level spell.
Anyway...if I were a designer and I wanted to create 5' steps as I believe the designers intended, this is what I would have done:
First off, I would remove all references to 5' steps that are already in the PHB. Then I would have added a paragraph that defines 5' steps in the following way:
The 5' step:
Definition: A 5' step is a small adjustment in position that does not count as a move.
When: A 5' step may be taken either before or after any action(partial, full-round, standard, free, MEA) if the character has moved no actual distance for the round and is not otherwise restricted from moving. Only one 5' step may be taken per round.
Benefits: A 5' step never provokes an AoO.
Restrictions: After a 5' step is taken, the character may not move again for the rest of the round. (YMMV, with this one...IMO, I think this is what they meant even though it is stated no where in the PHB...it prevents taking a 5' step to escape an AoO then moving then doing something else).
Artoomis
First Post
Virago:
Well, I admit I am weak. I got sucked in because I saw a slightly different spin to the discussion - a look at whether 5-foot steps are tied to actions or to a round.
As for not acknowledging the other side - I've done that plenty of times in the other thread, and, as I've said before, you are certainly free to "house rule" as you like. The "other side" seems to me to have most of their argument based on how they think the rules should work, as opposed to what is stated in the rules.
I'm only trying to look at the rules themselves to see how they work within the context of the core rules only. Within that context I think I've made my case pretty well and I've yet to see a really good counter-argument that does not at least want to assume that a round does not equal a round when hasted. The haste spell itself gives you an extra partial action - within the context of a round.
In fact, by the rules themselves, a haste spell does not let you finish a spell with a casting time of 1 round on your turn - that's a Sage interpretation. The language itself would directly support using your partial action first, then casting your spell, thus preserving your extra action by using it first. I don't have a problem with using the extra partial action to finish your spell. In fact, I think it dovetails nicely with the rule on using partial actions to begin a full-round action. I'm just pointing out how the rules are written.
I'm not saying a 5-foot step shouldn't be allowed with haste - it just so happens that the rules say otherwise.
I'm not sure I've made my point well, so let me restate:
The rules say only one 5-foot step is allowed per round.
This in no way means that you shouldn't allow an extra 5-foot step for haste, if you think that's appropriate. It ups the power of haste just a bit from the rules as written.
Finally, let's face it, the rules as written did not get as much review as we might like to think they did. You may think that haste should give an extra 5-foot step per round - if that's the case, go for it. But a strict rules-based argument won't fly to make your case.
I'm pretty sure that even Spikey (who, I think, really likes the extra 5-foot step from haste) would agree with me on that last point.
Well, I admit I am weak. I got sucked in because I saw a slightly different spin to the discussion - a look at whether 5-foot steps are tied to actions or to a round.
As for not acknowledging the other side - I've done that plenty of times in the other thread, and, as I've said before, you are certainly free to "house rule" as you like. The "other side" seems to me to have most of their argument based on how they think the rules should work, as opposed to what is stated in the rules.
I'm only trying to look at the rules themselves to see how they work within the context of the core rules only. Within that context I think I've made my case pretty well and I've yet to see a really good counter-argument that does not at least want to assume that a round does not equal a round when hasted. The haste spell itself gives you an extra partial action - within the context of a round.
In fact, by the rules themselves, a haste spell does not let you finish a spell with a casting time of 1 round on your turn - that's a Sage interpretation. The language itself would directly support using your partial action first, then casting your spell, thus preserving your extra action by using it first. I don't have a problem with using the extra partial action to finish your spell. In fact, I think it dovetails nicely with the rule on using partial actions to begin a full-round action. I'm just pointing out how the rules are written.
I'm not saying a 5-foot step shouldn't be allowed with haste - it just so happens that the rules say otherwise.
I'm not sure I've made my point well, so let me restate:
The rules say only one 5-foot step is allowed per round.
This in no way means that you shouldn't allow an extra 5-foot step for haste, if you think that's appropriate. It ups the power of haste just a bit from the rules as written.
Finally, let's face it, the rules as written did not get as much review as we might like to think they did. You may think that haste should give an extra 5-foot step per round - if that's the case, go for it. But a strict rules-based argument won't fly to make your case.
I'm pretty sure that even Spikey (who, I think, really likes the extra 5-foot step from haste) would agree with me on that last point.
