The Ubiquitous 5' Step

[MarkB]

Well, technically it means you can't move 5' and full attack without drawing a AoO; you can still take the Withdraw Action for a double move the draws no AoO from the threatened hex you are leaving (though opening you up to others down the line). There's also the Tumble check, for the dexy-skilled types.

Now, to be honest, I haven't really put the idea through the proper paces; running the likely scenarios through my head and then trying some stuff out at the table. But I think that the main effect of taking out the 5' Step would be that every couple of combat rounds someone would say, "You can't move 5' and Full Attack."

The effect would be to reduce combat to an entirely static affair for anyone without Tumble. No 5-foot step means no co-operative flanking tactics, no stepping out to let another character in to attack, no stepping back to spellcast or fire a ranged weapon, no adjustment to attack an opponent wielding a reach weapon.

In short, tactical combat would be greatly reduced, creatures with reach would rule the battlefield even more so than with your variable-step rule, and opponents would just stand toe-to-toe, unmoving, until one or the other won.

It'd be boring.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

if you are prone, do you still get a 5 foot step, and does this avoid an aoo? sorry for thread hijack. Its related though.

 

[shilsen]

if you are prone, do you still get a 5 foot step, and does this avoid an aoo? sorry for thread hijack. Its related though.

No. I can't recall an explicit reference, but when prone you're reduced to crawling 5 ft as move action as an option for movement, and 5 ft steps cannot be taken when your speed is reduced to half or lower.

 

[phindar]

No 5-foot step means no co-operative flanking tactics, no stepping out to let another character in to attack, no stepping back to spellcast or fire a ranged weapon, no adjustment to attack an opponent wielding a reach weapon.

Not to be pedantic (but then, what are internet forums for other than that), you could do all those things, and more. You'd just have to take a Move Action to do it, and you'd have to follow up with a Partial Action.

I'd also open up avoiding AoO's to other skills (like Jump and Bluff) so that Tumble wasn't the only way to go. I did that with my slimmed down Gladiators! game, and I was happy with the way it worked out.

 

[beepeearr]

In my games I've switched the 5' foot step to a reach step instead. Basically creatures can take a step equal to their base reach instead of 5' feet for all of them. It seems to work out well, and as far as making enlarge to powerful a spell. Enlarge also typically makes that PC a huge target with a lower AC, easier to flank, and capable of being attacked by more enemies.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Seperate the Step mechanic from the AoO mechanic.

Larger/Faster (I'd go with faster) creatures can move farther without using an action. The 5-foot Step mechanic, though, remains the same for all creatures regarding AoOs. So, that creature that moves 300 ft per round may be able to move 50 ft and still make a full attack, but it can only move 5 feet without determining whether or not an AoO takes place.

Just a thought.


RC

 

[MarkB]

Not to be pedantic (but then, what are internet forums for other than that), you could do all those things, and more. You'd just have to take a Move Action to do it, and you'd have to follow up with a Partial Action.

You snipped the part where I said those stop being options without Tumble. Giving up full-round actions is bad enough, but doing that and giving your opponent extra attacks utterly devalues tactical movement during combat.

I'd also open up avoiding AoO's to other skills (like Jump and Bluff) so that Tumble wasn't the only way to go. I did that with my slimmed down Gladiators! game, and I was happy with the way it worked out.

That might help, though it pretty much ties down skill choices for skills-lite combatants like fighters - if they want battlefield mobility, they have to take a Tumble-equivalent skill.

I still think it's a retrograde step - the introduction of the 5-foot step, amongst other things, made 3.5e combat much more vibrant and active than it was in previous editions, and I don't think any of the alternatives you've proposed would make up for it.

 

[pressedcat]

I liked Ki Ryn's explanation for why a 5ft step does make sense. It's maybe a little forced, but is still the best explanation for 5ft steps i've seen about (for creature that occupy at least a 5ft square anyway).

Also, i don't want to be a constant nay-sayer, but a lot of people here are saying that preventing players from taking full attacks so often is possibly a good thing. I'd disagree with this somewhat for the simple reason that it would yet again benefit (or least harm) the two handed fighter, who suffers far less from making a single attack than does someone wielding two weapons. Also, although using weapons with reach would make more sense when fighting large creatures with a 10ft+ 'free adjustment', this yet again benefits two handed fighters more.

As to adjusting the free step distance dependent upon movement, again i'd be wary about setting the boundaries in the 10-30ft=5ft step, 35-50=10ft step as this would make taking a level in barbarian (already a very desirable thing for many fighter types) an even more optimal thing to do.

I like the imagery of several nimble human sized fighters being able to take down a lumbering larger foe by slowly surrounding it and whittling it down. Once engaged in combat, the large giant might be able to outpace smaller foes if it decided to move, but it is too busy trying to watch all those around it to take large strides.

If larger foes could suddenly take 10ft moves all the time, they would (if you wanted to maximise a monster's potential), resulting in monsters easily outmanoevering medium players so that they end up chasing it around the board, suffering potentially constant attacks of opportunity. Now who wants to fight a hydra in combat? (ps i always went for the same no. of aoo as heads, only 1 attack per aoo interpretation)

All this said against your idea, if you manage to come up with a workable solution, all kudos to you and i'd seriously consider taking it up myself.

 

[Nail]

... or think its more trouble than its worth.

Bingo.

FWIW.

 

[pawsplay]

Small creatures have more room to scamper about, large creatures have long strides but most maneuver more carefully. It's a simplification, but a workable one. I wouldn't mess with it. I would not imagine a 15' giant would be more nimble on his feet than a human.