Why doesn't the 5' step provoke AoO?

[Infiniti2000]

I have a hard time believing that.

I have a hard time believing that someone can even cast a spell. If I'm willing to put my imagination to work, it should be to create a game that's fun with a modicum of realism. For more realism, you'll need another system. If the houserule works for you, go for it, but you are changing a significant part of the rules for the wrong reason IMO. In other words, if you claim to adopt this houserule in the name of realism, you've got A HUGE amount of work to do to really obtain your realism in D&D. GFL.

 

[General Barron]

It's the same way the Ready action works. In fact, the exact text is copied from the Ready action (and just altered to fit in the sentence).

I think it should mean, that if you have moved during your last action, then you cannot perform the 5-ft. step.

Bye
Thanee

Perfect, thanks .

All 5 foot step is really trying to simulate it the small movements one does in combat, such as circling opponents.

Yes, and when one person makes a small movement, the other person also makes a small movement in response. If you circle me, I might counter-circle you (at the very least, I rotate to face you). If you step back, I step forward after you.

If it still doesn't make sense, then imagine this IRL: two swordsmen locked in mortal combat, trading blows. One of them gets thirsty, and wants to drink some water. So he steps back to get a safe distance from his opponent, then pulls out a bottle of water and drinks. His opponent just stands still, not following the thirsty fencer.

The above scenario is completely absurd. What would really happen, of course, is that the second fencer would simply step forward at the same time the first steps back. The current rules simulate this well enough with the withdraw action (since it takes a full round action, and the enemy can just follow on his action), but fails miserably with the 5' step.

-----

I have a hard time believing that someone can even cast a spell. If I'm willing to put my imagination to work, it should be to create a game that's fun with a modicum of realism. For more realism, you'll need another system. If the houserule works for you, go for it, but you are changing a significant part of the rules for the wrong reason IMO. In other words, if you claim to adopt this houserule in the name of realism, you've got A HUGE amount of work to do to really obtain your realism in D&D. GFL.

I'm not trying to make a perfectly realistic game. But the above scenario is completely absurd, and makes it hard to really 'put myself there' (as opposed to feeling like I'm playing a boardgame). That is what makes the game fun for me. If all it takes is one extremely minor change to make the game that much more 'real' feeling, then yes, I will do it.

I get the feeling that you only oppose this house rule because, in your experience, you have used the 5' step heavily to your own advantage. If that is the case, you would have nothing to fear (were you my player), since as a DM it's my job to make adventures that are achievable by the players (albiet challenging). Obviously the rules have to be factored into that equation.

 

[Legildur]

....If it still doesn't make sense, then imagine this IRL: two swordsmen locked in mortal combat, trading blows. One of them gets thirsty, and wants to drink some water. So he steps back to get a safe distance from his opponent, then pulls out a bottle of water and drinks. His opponent just stands still, not following the thirsty fencer.....

Why not? Ever done any full contact boxing or martial arts? When you are thinking of the best way to protect yourself and also trying to hurt someone else, you don't necessarily expect them to suddenly step out of immediate threat range. You are usually looking for them to try and hurt you. In some circumstances your scenario may play true (particularly if one opponent is not a physical threat to the other) but just as often it may not do so. I'm with I2K on this one. Other threads have recommended GURPS as a fairly realism heavy alternative.

 

[IanB]

I predict that if you remove the 5 foot step per RAW, combat balance will be totally thrown off.

I'm interested to hear the results, but almost certainly what you're going to get is a game in which non-melee characters are heavily devalued.

 

[General Barron]

Why not? Ever done any full contact boxing or martial arts? When you are thinking of the best way to protect yourself and also trying to hurt someone else, you don't necessarily expect them to suddenly step out of immediate threat range. You are usually looking for them to try and hurt you. In some circumstances your scenario may play true (particularly if one opponent is not a physical threat to the other) but just as often it may not do so.

Hence the reason for the attack roll on the AoO:

Successful attack roll-- you noticed what they were doing, and successfully exploited their lapse of defense.
Failed attack roll-- you failed to notice what they were doing in time, and they managed to defend themselves when you finally tried to exploit their weakness.

Obviously you are lumping a lot of different factors together into one die roll, but DnD holds plenty of abstraction.

I'm interested to hear the results, but almost certainly what you're going to get is a game in which non-melee characters are heavily devalued.

I'm expecting that you would get a game where non-melee characters are heavily devalued in melee combat, which should be the case.

But if you have a couple of melee characters up front, defending the spell/arrowslingers in the rear, then it should work nicely. Are you going to have enough bodies to do that in a 4-man party? Prolly not usually. So in some respects, I could see how it might throw off your typical 'balance', depending on what you consider that to be. But the guy who can fly, turn you invisible, and throw gobs of fire is still going to be a valued asset. And you can always have your fighters carry both a sword AND a bow.

 

[Thanee]

I'm interested to hear the results, but almost certainly what you're going to get is a game in which non-melee characters are heavily devalued.

I don't think so.

There are still plenty options left... like Tumble.

The biggest difference is on the strategic level. It's more important to keep the archers and spellcasters out of melee to have them be effective, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, since it requires more cooperation between party members.

Also, it means, that a specialized archer will still have to resort to using a melee weapon, in a situtation, where it makes sense (realistically ) to use a melee weapon instead of a bow. In D&D there is usually no reason for an archer to use anything but a bow (yeah, yeah, Sunder... ).

And spellcasters got defensive casting, so they are not really affected much, anyways. The 5-ft. step mostly devalues defensive casting for spellcasters, since it is in most cases simply superior.

All in all, I don't think that this change will negatively affect the game balance.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Infiniti2000]

If all it takes is one extremely minor change to make the game that much more 'real' feeling, then yes, I will do it.

And I'm just cautioning you that this is definitely not a minor change. This is a huge change. It totally uproots a fundamental feature of the combat system. I'm happy that you feel empowered to make changes in your game. If after you make the change, you and your players enjoy it, then good for you. I'm not trying to tell you not to do it, just letting you know that it will have a big impact. Much bigger, IMO, than I think you think.

I get the feeling that you only oppose this house rule because, in your experience, you have used the 5' step heavily to your own advantage. If that is the case, you would have nothing to fear (were you my player), since as a DM it's my job to make adventures that are achievable by the players (albiet challenging). Obviously the rules have to be factored into that equation.

Everyone uses the 5ft-step to their advantage when appropriate. Stepping back to drink a potion is very infrequent. It basically will only ever happen to drink a healing potion. No, really, that's almost always the only case. So, when you institute your rule specifically to negate drinking potions, your saying, "Okay, no more using healing potions in combat." Now, the cleric is suddenly much more important to have around. When potions are handed out as treasure, they certainly won't be as high on the list. They'll be inter-encounter items rather than usable during an encounter.

You've also suddenly made Concentration a must-have skill, MUCH more so than it was previously. Every single caster in the game will now have it rather than relying on an ability to step back.

I predict that in short, the effect of this houserule will be more dead PCs. It may mean more dead monsters, too, but no one ever mourns the loss of monsters 'cause the DM can always make more. So, my response isn't purely about realism, it's about playability and understanding all the repercussions it will have. Can you? Sure, but it's certainly hard. And, IMO, not worth it. Your time will be much better spent on world design than this.

 

[Thanee]

I think you totally overestimate the impact of that house rule.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Infiniti2000]

I think you totally overestimate the impact of that house rule.

I think you underestimate the impact of it.

Hey, we both have our opinions. The fact is that urging caution never hurts.

 

[Lamoni]

So, sticking with the potion, if somebody tries to do something as risky as this, they should suffer an AoO. If they want to be completely safe, they should withdraw so they can drink their potion without worrying about the guy trying to cut their head off. The 5' step as written does not do this. The posted house rule does.

I see where you are coming from. However, I see that the guy who took a 5' step and drank the potion already gave up the option to retaliate with an attack PLUS they didn't get out of the way to prevent a full attack. I just think that forcing an AoO on a 5 ft step would make it that much worse.

The guy could withdraw instead... but then he'd have to wait until next round to drink his potion. While he is waiting for the next round the fighter could charge him and attack. This would prevent the full-attack, but he'd still be no closer to drinking his potion. Maybe you could think of it more like swordfights that you see on TV or in the movies and one guy loses his sword. He jumps back 5 ft, grabs a new weapon and then the guy closes on him. Well the potion could be like that. He jumps back, quaffs his potion and then the guy closes on him. Yes it is hard to do or imagine, but I just think the alternative of not allowing the 5 ft step puts everyone in a much worse situation.