Sage Answer: Haste & 5ft Step(s)

[Uller]

This thread has degenrated into a post count increasing thread, which clearly belongs in Meta. Any Mods around?

Plus, I refuse to take part.

--Post.Count = Post.Count + 1 Spikey

Your sig just decremented your post count, then incremented it...("--" means "pre-decrement")

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Your sig just decremented your post count, then incremented it...("--" means "pre-decrement")

++Post.Count Spikey

There, is that better?

And I still refuse to participate.

 

[KarinsDad]

Ok, I am in a hurry, so I will respond more clearly later.

But, here's the main points:

1) The AoO rules are explicit that the 5-foot step only prevents the AoO for movement once per round. This means how often the AoOs protect you per round, not how many times you can take a 5-foot step per round. No matter how many different ways people try to MAKE it mean that, it does not. The AoO rules are totally irrelevant to the conversation with one exception. If you are using the AoO rules to imply one AoO per round, hence, the designers intended one 5-foot step per round, then fine. It does not prove that, but it shows what a given person thinks the designers intent was.

2) Yes, the DMG states that if there is no rule for something, that you should extrapolate based on the known rules. However, the known rules are not totally unclear here. They are just inconsistent here.

The known rules allow:

Hasted: 5-foot move, full round attack, 5-foot move, partial action attack

They do not allow:

Hasted: 5-foot move, full round attack, 5-foot move, open a door

Just because this inconsistency is in the rules does not mean that the rules are unclear. They are clear. They state one 5-foot step per round for an MEA. They do not state one 5-foot step per round for any other type of actions, merely one 5-foot step per ACTION.

Hey KD,

Can you explain the logic behind allowing multiple 5' steps with partial actions, but not MEAs?

It doesn't make sense that that restriction would be expressly put on MEAs and not partial actions when MEAs take a "smaller" amount of time(as in a normal turn can consist of two MEAs or an MEA and a Partial action, but not two Partials). In fact, a partial action can BE an MEA. In that case, does the one-per-round rule apply or not?

Of course it does. It is not a partial, but an MEA. You are replacing your partial with an MEA in this case.

If you can move, ready (trigger) 5' step, drink potion...

Did I say you could do that? None of the actions allow you to both move and take a 5-foot step within the action. Even if you try to break a standard action up into move and readied partial.


The point is, however, you are correct (even though your example was not). It is not logical because it is not consistent.

However, just because it is inconsistent does NOT mean that it is not clear. It means that it is not consistent.

 

[Virago]

I had a long reply going, but my computer froze. :-/

Regarding the logical argument Spikey mentioned, I guess I should point out that I made this argument in the last thread, and it went ignored.

I'll take the difficulty of Artoomis and Uller in comprehending it as a sign that the thread is not worth bothering with anymore. I'll leave them to their flawed arguments and exaggerated claims.

Though it is nice to see Artoomis finally try to defend the MEA quote. It only took what, 5 or 6 repetitions?

 

[SpikeyFreak]

I had a long reply going, but my computer froze. :-/

Regarding the logical argument Spikey mentioned, I guess I should point out that I made this argument in the last thread, and it went ignored.

Ah, you just have to be more tenacious.

Or stubborn.

One of the two.

--Incremental Spikey

 

[Cloudgatherer]

(Jumps on Spikey's bandwagon)

Cloudgatherer.setPostCount(Cloudgatherer.getPostCount() + 1);

 

[SpikeyFreak]

For i = 0 to UBound(Spikey.Inventory)
If Spikey.Inventory(i) = Bandwagon then
Spikey.Mood = Happy
End if
Next

--UDV Spikey

 

[Uller]

I'll take the difficulty of Artoomis and Uller in comprehending it as a sign that the thread is not worth bothering with anymore. I'll leave them to their flawed arguments and exaggerated claims.

And I take personal insults as a sign that I'm right and you've nothing worth saying.

 

[Artoomis]

1) The AoO rules are explicit that the 5-foot step only prevents the AoO for movement once per round. This means how often the AoOs protect you per round, not how many times you can take a 5-foot step per round. No matter how many different ways people try to MAKE it mean that, it does not. The AoO rules are totally irrelevant to the conversation with one exception. If you are using the AoO rules to imply one AoO per round, hence, the designers intended one 5-foot step per round, then fine. It does not prove that, but it shows what a given person thinks the designers intent was.

I'm really enjoying this now - we're finally down to the nitty gritty, I think.

I'm only tackling your first point, KD, because when it's shown to be in error, the rest falls down like a house of cards.

1. Let's assume that you are right, and you can take 2 "5-foot steps" in one round with haste.

2. Per pg. 117 neither one avoids an AoO because you've moved more than 5 feet in a round. Right?

3. Recall that the definition of a "5-foot move" is that it does not provoke an AoO from movement.

4. Whoops - that means those two "5-foot moves" could not be "5-foot moves" because they don't avoid an AoO from movement. Ttherefore they must be regular movement (or something other than 5-foot moves, anyway).

5. If you only moved one 5-foot move, though, the pg 117 rule would be satisfied, and you could avoid the AoO - thus meeting the definition of a 5-foot move.

6. The net result of all this is you can only way you can satisfy both the page 117 rule and still meet the definition of a 5-foot step is to take only one in a round.

7. If you can only take one 5-foot step in a round, there is no conflict with any other rule. The Partial Action rule (which you seem to hang you hat on) only says you get one "typically." If I have the rule right, then it seems pretty clear that the effects of a haste spell are atypical - which makes sense. The rule do not seem to account for a haste exception.

If you can logically make an argument for 2 5-foot steps in a round that both meets the definition of 5-foot steps and does not violate the pg. 177 rule, I'd be convinced. I haven't seen anything like that yet - I look forward to it - I'd love to be wrong on this one, it would help my character.

 

[Uller]

Ok, I am in a hurry, so I will respond more clearly later.

But, here's the main points:

1) The AoO rules are explicit that the 5-foot step only prevents the AoO for movement once per round.

And the definition of a 5' step says that one does not provoke an AoO. If it can provoke an AoO, a 5' step it is not.

The known rules allow:

Hasted: 5-foot move, full round attack, 5-foot move, partial action attack

Here is where we disagree. A 5' step is not the same as or interchangable with a move that is 5' long. A 5' step is a specific game term with a very specific meaning. I know you don't like to allow the glossary to over ride the rest of the rules, but unfortunately, the ONLY place a 5' step is defined completely is in the glossary. Full round actions do not allow a move that is 5' long. The "restriction" in the MEA section is more of a clarification and a reminder and in no way means that it the same restriction does not apply to other 5' steps.

AoOs are completely relevant to this discussion because they are integral part of the definition of 5' steps.