Sage Answer: Haste & 5ft Step(s)

[KarinsDad]

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".

I agree with you. I was just playing devil's advocate with Artoomis and pulling his chain.

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".

Well, that assumes that the first part of this argument is correct. Where does it say that if you take multiple 5-foot steps that you provoke an AoO? It says (page 122) that "If you move into another threatened space, enemies do get attacks of opportunity for your leaving the second threatened space". This does not state that a different rule cannot supercede this one. For example, the Tumbling and Spring Attack rules obviously supercede this rule. Maybe the 5-foot step definition does as well.

These two rules might not be mutually exclusive.

 

[KarinsDad]

[blink]

Now that, I didn't expect

It's a good argument on his part.

Is it conclusive? Maybe, maybe not. But, it is good. I have no counter position which is as good.

It's obvious that some rules such as Tumbling and Spring Attack can supercede the normal AoO rules. The question comes down to whether the 5-foot step definition in the glossary combined with Haste does as well.

Does the AoO rule prevent multiple 5-foot steps?

Or, does the definition of a 5-foot step when combined with Haste supercede the AoO rule (like Tumble and Haste) since 5-foot steps by definition do not provoke AoOs (regardless of the AoO rules)?

There is a case for both positions. However, his seems stronger since it is more intuitive and easy to follow. Maybe someone will come up with a rule that strengthens the second position.

 

[Cloudgatherer]

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

1) (p. 121, Full-round action) "The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action." The full-round action description does not place the limitation you described.

2) Table 8-3, page 127. A partial action used for a melee attack allows for a 5-foot step.

4) None of the actions used a MEA. I've been asking for the counter rule for several pages in this thread and I don't recall the argument off the top of my head.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I understand your point on #2 now - you meant the table! In that case, we onkly disagree on 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10 - and of those, only 1 and 4 are real trouble spots (the rest are consequents of these two).

Your statement on #1 does not have anything to do with my point on #1 - what "limitation" was I putting on it in my statement on #1? I simply said that that text wasn't what allowed the 5-foot step, but rather what prohibited other movement.

As for #4, I stand by what I said - just because it's in the wrong section doesn't invalidate it,. just like the rule on TWF not being under "Feats" but "Equipment".

 

[CRGreathouse]

Well, that assumes that the first part of this argument is correct.

I agree. As I said, I'm not defending that position but explaining it.

 

[Artoomis]

Wow, KD, I never expected to actually sway anyone!

BTW - I've stated before, and I restate now even more clearly - I agree with you that the rules did not take haste into account, so that it is perfectly reasonable to adopt a rule that allows the partial action from haste to be totally seperate from the rest of the round (more or less).

In some ways, its easier to do that - and I certainly want my DM to do that - I'd like to be able to charge twice in a round (using Ride-By Attack)!

edti: For all those nitpickers - I meant charge twice at the same target - if the actions are "independent" I could charge past my victim, turn around, and charge again. Wheeee....... Death from Below (he's a halfling).


For those who don't get it, "Death from Above" is a sort of motto for all airborne paratroopers.

 

[Uller]

Well...I've nothing more to say. At least KD is able to concede that there is some merit in what Arty says. If you don't believe that the _reason_ a 5' step doesn't provoke an AoO is the rule on 117, then there is no convincing you. I do believe that they are intertwined and in fact the same (poorly worded) rule so there is really no convincing me.