Sage Answer: Haste & 5ft Step(s)

[SpikeyFreak]

If A (all move = 5'), then B (no AoO), and thefore, if not A (move more than 5') then not B (AoO not avoided).

If C (5' step), then B (no AoO), and therefore, if not B (AoO not avoided) then not C (not a 5' step).

Taking these two together, we have

Not A (move more than 5') then not C (not a 5' step).

Is that easier for you, Spikey? Please feel free to correct my logic to have it make sense with what is obviously my intent.

Your logic is flawed again.

If you have the axioms:
A' != A
B' != B and finally
A = B

The conclusion A' = B' is not always right. In fact in a logic class it would be be wrong.

Just because if you take a only ONE 5' step a round you don't provoke an AoO doesn't mean that if you take TWO 5' steps you do provoke AoOs.

By your logic, it can be argued that if you attack once and hit (A), you deal damage(B). But if you attack twice and hit(not A), you don't deal damage(not B).

--Vulcan Spikey

 

[Uller]

Your logic is flawed again.

If you have the axioms:
A' != A
B' != B and finally
A = B

The conclusion A' = B' is not always right. In fact in a logic class it would be be wrong.

Just because if you take a only ONE 5' step a round you don't provoke an AoO doesn't mean that if you take TWO 5' steps you do provoke AoOs.

By your logic, it can be argued that if you attack once and hit (A), you deal damage(B). But if you attack twice and hit(not A), you don't deal damage(not B).

--Vulcan Spikey

But that is the way it is...the rule clearly states that if total movement for the round is only 5' then no AoO is provoked.

Therefore, if you take two 5' steps, then BOTH provoke an AoO(and are no longer really 5' steps, IMO...they are both count as MOVES as a 5' step is a small adjustment in position that does not provoke an attack of opporunity)

 

[SpikeyFreak]

But that is the way it is...the rule clearly states that if total movement for the round is only 5' then no AoO is provoked.

Therefore, if you take two 5' steps, then BOTH provoke an AoO(and are no longer really 5' steps, IMO...they are both count as MOVES as a 5' step is a small adjustment in position that does not provoke an attack of opporunity)

Your therefore is used incorrectly. You are making a logical leap from "one FFS/R = no AoO" to "two FFSs/R = AoO."

--Abbreviated Spikey

Key:
FFS = five foot step
R = round
AoO = attack of opportunity
ICS = I can't spell.

 

[Artoomis]

Your logic is flawed again.

If you have the axioms:
A' != A
B' != B and finally
A = B

The conclusion A' = B' is not always right. In fact in a logic class it would be be wrong.

Just because if you take a only ONE 5' step a round you don't provoke an AoO doesn't mean that if you take TWO 5' steps you do provoke AoOs.

By your logic, it can be argued that if you attack once and hit (A), you deal damage(B). But if you attack twice and hit(not A), you don't deal damage(not B).

--Vulcan Spikey

Oh , I just knew I'd get something like this from you

You missed the boat this time, my friend. Not avoiding provoking AoO is not the same as provoking one, and I did not claim it was. What I claimed is that if you take two 5' moves, you do not avoid an AoO. I didn't say you provoked one - that's situation dependant and an entirely different statement that I did not make. (Whew - too many negatives in there - is that a triple negative hiding in there? I'm not sure I can understand this, and I wrote it.)

You seemed to have missed something. Let me restate a totally different way.

For the purposes of this discussion, we again assume we are only talking about what happens with movement (whether one or more 5-foot steps are allowed).

In that case, we can restate the general rules as:

AoO is avoided if, and only if, move is less than or equal to 5 feet.

The "only if" is valid because of the assumption. Remember, we are disregarding other means of avoiding AoOs.

Now it should be clear that if you move more than 5 feet you do not avoid the AoO.

My earlier statements were valid, but only when you take the assumption into account - you have to ignore other means of avoiding movment AoOs (they are irrelevant to this discussion). which is what I stated last time. I admit it was hard to follow before because the normal logic was voided out by the assumption, but that may not have been entirely clear.

So, I think, you are wrong in your logic because you failed to take the assumption into account.

Okay?

 

[IceBear]

Why are you guys arguing about AoO?

We all know that if you take a 5ft step, you cannot suffer a movement AoO. We all know that you normally can only take one 5-ft step per round. What we are arguing about is whether or not the partial action granted by haste allows a second 5-ft step.

I believe it does, because I see the partial action as occuring outside the normal round. Thus, to me, the one 5-ft step per round rule is not being violated.

Question: What was the offical ruling on haste and spells with a one round casting time? I thought it was the spell now becomes a FRA as you use the partial action to complete the spell. To me, this points the extra partial action as occuring outside the normal round.

IceBear

 

[SpikeyFreak]

So, I think, you are wrong in your logic because you failed to take the assumption into account.

Okay?

The assumption you are making is not in the rules.

And that assumption doesn't change the fact that:

If you have the axioms:
A' != A
B' != B and finally
A = B

The conclusion A' = B' is not always right.

The statement you are quoting is just making a blanket statement about FFSs and AoOs. If you ONLY take a FFS, then you don't provoke an AoO. It doesn't say that this is the only was of avoiuding AoOs, even with regards just to movement. There are other ways of not provoking an AoO, like just doing a normal move.

Your stance may be correct according to the intent of the game designers and/or the Sage, but it is not supported by the rules as written.

--Sucked-In Spikey

 

[Uller]

Your therefore is used incorrectly. You are making a logical leap from "one FFS/R = no AoO" to "two FFSs/R = AoO."

--Abbreviated Spikey

Okay Mr Logic Pants...

Any time you have moved more than 5' in a round and you do something other than move, your movement is eligible to draw an AoO. That is the rule under AoOs...Since a 5' step is defined as "...does not provoke an AoO" a 5' movement can only be called a 5' step if you have not moved yet for the round.

And looking at it this way...I believe Artoomis is completely supported by the PHB.

I don't normally think rules reside in the glossary, but there is no place in the PHB other than the glossary that defines a 5' step.

Again...it is too bad that the designers didn't word this better or better define a 5' step and under what circumstances they intended them to be able to be taken.

 

[Artoomis]

Why are you guys arguing about AoO?

We all know that if you take a 5ft step, you cannot suffer a movement AoO. We all know that you normally can only take one 5-ft step per round. What we are arguing about is whether or not the partial action granted by haste allows a second 5-ft step.

I believe it does, because I see the partial action as occuring outside the normal round. Thus, to me, the one 5-ft step per round rule is not being violated.

Question: What was the offical ruling on haste and spells with a one round casting time? I thought it was the spell now becomes a FRA as you use the partial action to complete the spell. To me, this points the extra partial action as occuring outside the normal round.

IceBear

The AoO discussion come about because of the page 117 rule (see previous quote, please). You need to do an analysis like I've done to see how that rule means only one 5-foot step per round. The discussion has just taken off a little because I'm trying to deal with Spikey's analysis of my logic.

As for the ruling that a full-round spell can be completed with the partial action from haste - that was a Sage ruling that is an interesting addition to the rules that apparently came into being because of Time and Blood, so it's not a base rule, but an optional one (if I understand what happened correctly - I think Caliban remembers better than I do). In any case, it's an exception for that one case of full-round spells only.

Of course, if you like the extra partial action being outside of normal actions, then use it that way. The rules are meant to be modified as desired. I just have this insane desire to understand the rules as written before I make them be what I want them to be.

edit: These discussions help me to be a better writer when I write up my own rules - or policies and procedures at work, for that matter.

 

[Uller]

Why are you guys arguing about AoO?

Because it is fun.

We all know that if you take a 5ft step, you cannot suffer a movement AoO. We all know that you normally can only take one 5-ft step per round.

Apparently not all of us.

I believe it does, because I see the partial action as occuring outside the normal round. Thus, to me, the one 5-ft step per round rule is not being violated.

I won't argue with that. If you see the partial action from haste as a sort of free round in which anything you did in the rest of your round is irrelevant, then you are completely right to allow a 5' step with haste(and allow other round conditions to not applie...like if you Power Attack in your normal action, then you don't have to in your haste action). It is kept nice and simple and if it works that way for you, then great. Niether way is a house rule...just different interpritations.

Question: What was the offical ruling on haste and spells with a one round casting time? I thought it was the spell now becomes a FRA as you use the partial action to complete the spell. To me, this points the extra partial action as occuring outside the normal round.

IceBear

I think you're right.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Originally posted by IceBear
Why are you guys arguing about AoO?

I'm kinda curious to see if we can get this thread as long as the last one.

Care to help?

--Slowing Spikey