Sage Answer: Haste & 5ft Step(s)

[Tony Vargas]

No one else finds it odd that if you are hasted you can take the extra Partial Action before your turn, use it to Move 30 feet, then take your normal action and take another Move action to move another 30 feet, and then attack someone, but if you instead take a 5' step during that initial extra partial action you are now somehow barred from moving again for the rest of the round?

It's no stranger than taking a 5' step, attacking, then being 'unable' to move any further in the course of a normal round, even though you still have an MEA 'left.'
I suppose that the AoO-immune 5' step ('repositioning') is really assumed to take place over the course of the round, as part of engaging the enemy(s) you face that round, in the course of striking, parrying and jockeying for position.

 

[Artoomis]

It's no stranger than taking a 5' step, attacking, then being 'unable' to move any further in the course of a normal round, even though you still have an MEA 'left.'
I suppose that the AoO-immune 5' step ('repositioning') is really assumed to take place over the course of the round, as part of engaging the enemy(s) you face that round, in the course of striking, parrying and jockeying for position.

That's a nice way of looking at it.

 

[Cloudgatherer]

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. 117 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.

I still hold 5-foot adjustment steps are tied to actions, and not rounds. If they were tied to rounds, then the stunned character gets a 5-foot adjustment (no one wants to comment on this it seems).

Now to get out my logic stick and beat on this problem....

I'll start with the p. 117 "rule".

Page 117:
If your entire move for the round is 5 feet (a 5-foot step), enemies do not get attacks of opportunity for you moving.

I think it's important to point out that this appears in the "Combat Basics" part of the book, a quick summary page that quickly lists info about combat.

(Hopefully) we all agree this is true. This is one instance where a character does not provoke an attack of opportunity for movement.

Now consider this...

If your entire move for the round is 0 feet (you do not move), enemies do not get attacks of opportunity for you moving.

Again, (hopefully) we all agree this is true as well. There is also the "only move rule" for AoOs, which appears right above our much discussed 117 rule.

Given the above examples, I submit that there are multiple conditions where an opponent does not get an AoO for movement, in addition to the 117 rule.

The 117 rule is only one case (among many) where an enemy is denied an AoO for movement. That's all I'm going to argue in this post, I'm wondering if anyone will grant what I've just tried to show.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Given the above examples, I submit that there are multiple conditions where an opponent does not get an AoO for movement, in addition to the 117 rule.

The 117 rule is only one case (among many) where an enemy is denied an AoO for movement. That's all I'm going to argue in this post, I'm wondering if anyone will grant what I've just tried to show.

I submit that the rule on page 117 is not the only "no AoO" rule, but it is the only rule for not provoking with 5-foot steps.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

Again, (hopefully) we all agree this is true as well. There is also the "only move rule" for AoOs, which appears right above our much discussed 117 rule.

Given the above examples, I submit that there are multiple conditions where an opponent does not get an AoO for movement, in addition to the 117 rule.

The 117 rule is only one case (among many) where an enemy is denied an AoO for movement. That's all I'm going to argue in this post, I'm wondering if anyone will grant what I've just tried to show.

That's what I said with A' != B'

Sheesh.

--Methematical Spikey

 

[Cloudgatherer]

I submit that the rule on page 117 is not the only "no AoO" rule, but it is the only rule for not provoking with 5-foot steps.

My counter to this is simply the definition of a 5-foot step:

PHB Glossary
5-foot step: A small position adjustment that does not count as a move in combat. Usually (but not always), a 5-foot step is permitted in conjunction with a full-round action and may be taken at any point in the round. Most partial actions also permit a 5-foot step. This movement does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

Now let's see if I can nail this shut....(heh)

1) A full-round attack action grants a 5-foot step (given, p. 122).
2) A partial action used for an attack grants a 5-foot step (given, p. 127).
3) A 5-foot step does not provoke an AoO (given, glossary, definition of 5-foot step).
4) There is no rule that limits the number of 5-foot steps per round (p. 117, p. 121 excluding MEA since it is not being used, definition of 5-foot step).
5) Haste grants a character an extra partial action each round (p. 212).
6) A hasted character can use the full attack action and a partial action to attack in the same round (points 1, 2, and 5).
7) The hasted character can take a 5-foot step during his full-round attack (point 1).
8) The hasted character can take a 5-foot step during his partial action attack (point 2).
9) The hasted character can take a total of 2 5-foot steps (points 4, 5, 6, 7).
10) Therefore, since movement using 5-foot steps does not provoke an attack of opportunity, the hasted character can possibly take 2 5-foot steps without drawing an AoO (points 3, 9).

Some notes:

I expect 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 to be non-controversial (but you never know).

I've repeatedly asked for a counter to point (4), but have never seen one. Still looking for it though....

 

[CRGreathouse]

Relevant text quotes:
1. In my copy, this rule is on page 121 (2nd printing):

The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before., during, or afetr the action.

2.

Typically, you may take a 5-foot step as part of a partial action.

1. To be a devil's advocate, this does not grant a 5-foot step, but disallows all other movement.
2. This says nothing about attacking, and "typically" isn't defined.
3. I agree.
4. Just because it's under the wrong section doesn't mean it can't apply - see the TWF/Crossbow argument.
5. I agree.
6. I agree.
7. I don't agree in all cases - see points #1 and #4
8. I don't agree in all cases - see points #2 and #4
9. I don't agree - see points #7 and #8

 

[KarinsDad]

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?

No.

According to the definition of 5-foot step in the glossary, you made two 5 foot positional adjustments. You did not move 10 feet.

Either you use all of the words in the glossary definition (i.e. 5-foot step does not count as a move and does not provoke an AoO), or you use none of them.

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

And, here is the nuts and bolts of your AoO argument. The glossary states “A small positional adjustment that does not count as a move in combat. … This movement does not provoke an AoO.”

However, page 122 states: “If your entire move for the round is 5 feet (a 5-foot step), enemies do not get attacks of opportunity for your moving.” Page 117 states this as well.

But, do these rules (on page 117 and 122) apply to 5-foot steps when hasted? There are two counter arguments:

1) Parenthesis in the English language can mean either i.e. or e.g. So, the rules on page 117 and 122 might explicitly be talking about a non-hasted round. Why? Well, part of the definition of a 5-foot step is that it does not provoke AoOs. So, according to your logic, there is only one protection from AoO per round for moving 5 feet in a round. 5-foot steps always prevent AoOs. Hence, if you can only get the protection once per round, you can only take one 5-foot step per round and hence, two 5-foot steps are not allowed. And, this is a reasonable position to take.

But, the counter argument that you can have multiple 5-foot steps per round, but this rule only applies when you take one of them is also tenable. The multiple 5-foot steps still protect you from AoOs, they just do not do it because of the AoO rules on page 117 and 122. They do it based on the glossary definition (just like dropping a weapon when stunned is based SOLELY on the glossary definition). In other words, the AoO rules (on page 117 and 122) discuss the specific case of one 5-foot step per round, but do not take into account and do not apply to the case of two 5-foot steps per round (i.e. they are a subset rule, not a superset rule).

2) Does the 5-foot step count as a move? The glossary states that it does not count as a move, but is rather a positional adjustment. The AoO rule implies that the 5-foot step is movement and part of “your entire move for the round’. So, if you take 2 5-foot steps in a round, is your entire move for the round 10 feet? Well, not according to the glossary definition of 5-foot steps. You moved 0 feet. You positionally adjusted 10 feet. According to the AoO rule, it is moving 10 feet.

Granted, this second one is an extremely nit point. But, that’s what rules lawyering is all about: taking the literal words and using them as is to prove your point literally.

Note: Given the positional adjustment definition of a 5-foot step argument (#2 above), the MEA rule only applies to real combat movement as well. In a standard round, you can MEA, take a 5-foot step, MEA again, and take another 5-foot step since neither of the 5-foot steps are actual move, they are just positional adjustments according to the glossary definition of 5-foot step.


In all seriousness here, the real problem here is that the designers did not take into account Haste. They basically made the assumption in the rules that a round generally consists of either a standard action or a full round action (and hence used the phrase per round and per turn a lot).

However, I still believe that the reason they wrote them the way they did is that they did not take Haste into account, merely because you have to really dig into the rules in order to illustrate your point. YMMV.

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. 117 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.

The best I could do is illustrate that the rules on page 117 and 122 might not apply. In other words, if you can do multiple 5-foot steps per round, then these rules are specific only to the case when you can only do one.

Btw, your AoO argument, as presented this time, is quite compelling (it was less clear, at least to me, on other occasions, maybe I did not read it carefully enough). In fact, it is compelling enough that I concede that one 5-foot step per round is what is literally meant by the rules as written (although I still had to come up with a counter position, just to shake your tree ).

 

[Hypersmurf]

In fact, it is compelling enough that I concede that one 5-foot step per round is what is literally meant by the rules as written.

[blink]

Now that, I didn't expect

-Hyp.

 

[CRGreathouse]

According to the definition of 5-foot step in the glossary, you made two 5 foot positional adjustments. You did not move 10 feet.

Either you use all of the words in the glossary definition (i.e. 5-foot step does not count as a move and does not provoke an AoO), or you use none of them.

1. My take on the glossary definition is that a 5-foot step doesn't count as a move (as in move vs. move-eq action), not as in "youi didn't change position".
2. In an argument, this is all that would have to be shown - that a given interpretation contradicts itself:
If you can take multiple 5-foot steps you provoke AoO; 5-foot steps don't provoke AoO; thus you can't take multiple 5-foot steps. It's a "proof by contradiction".

Note that this is not my proof and I will not defend it; I'm simply explaining the logic behind it.