Why doesn't the 5' step provoke AoO?

[Thanee]

The fact is that urging caution never hurts.

Right.

Bye
Thanee

 

[RigaMortus2]

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.

Right. Which is why the enemy can then 5-foot step as well. This is him counter-circling or following the person who initiated the 5 foot step.

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.

Here is a misconception. The person isn't necessarily "stepping back THEN taking out a bottle of water and drinking". He is doing it all in one action. He is "steppling back WHILE AT THE SAME TIME pulling out a bottle and drinking it". You can certainly view it either way. The way I suggest is the best way to have it "make sense".

Same with the archer, as he is taking is 5 foot step back he has enough time to fire his bow before the enemy closes in on him with his own 5 foot step.

You seem to think that, as soon as one person raises his foot to make a step back, the other person is mirroring him and reacting at the same exact time.

 

[Cabled]

Moving IN as well

Something I haven't seen mentioned here (though I could have just missed it) is that the 5' step is equally handy for getting inside the reach of those enormous critters that can smack you 20 or 30 feet away. These are the same creatures that tend to hit HARD, the kind you don't want to be taking AoO's from. Take away the 5' step, and you will be taking those AoO's on the way in, and you will be taking them on the way out. And you will be losing a lot of lightly armored, low hit point characters..especially if you're not very upfront about the kind of reach the creature has before the character finds themselves within it.

 

[Thanee]

@Cabled: Yep, that's right. Hence my proposal above, which still allows stuff like that.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Kisanji Arael]

I'm not in this for an argument, because if you have a problem with a rule then it's your game. But I do martial arts, I practice three sword styles, and I wrestle. As for that last one, I pinned three people yesterday, one in under twenty seconds. I feel I have something to say on realism in a fight.

When I shoot on someone who I am not grappling without setting up my shot, they are (EDIT: If they are decent) going to throw their legs back, and I am going to fail. If I shoot in on someone who is already taking a step back, then I am probably going down really fast unless I'm death on wheels (three or more levels their superior).

Are they going to be able to drink water? I don't know. We can't have water on the mat. But we do have headgear and kneepads. And I know that I am fully capable of adjusting one of those while I take a step back. He knows that if he takes a step toward me, I will have an opening.


---
That being said, I would recommend that a character may "move with" a five foot step, but doing so provokes an attack of opportunity. If they're good enough, it won't matter. If they're good enough, it's more important that they threaten than that they keep their defenses at their peak, such as against a mage. However, if they haphazardly throw themselves at a character who steps back to drink a potion, they're going to get themselves skewered, because there is nothing more dangerous than going at someone who just put distance between himself and you. In a real fight, one without healing potions and spells, taking a step back is a tactical movement. You, as a DM of a fantasy setting, should not simply assume that they're going to do something unrealistic. This is also a compromise against the current system, which favors the mage, and the system that you propose, which heavily favors the fighter. Just my 2 CP.

 

[General Barron]

You seem to think that, as soon as one person raises his foot to make a step back, the other person is mirroring him and reacting at the same exact time.

That's exactly what I'm thinking. Well, obviously not literally moving their feet at the same time, but the combat system is supposed to represent everything happening at once. It is NOT supposed to represent one person doing something, while everyone else stands still, then another person doing something.

This can be simulated in real time in a video game, but for DnD we have to settle for turn-based combat. AoO is one way to make things less turn-based, and more 'simultaneous'. The aforementioned potion scenario is a breakdown of the AoO mechanic, IMO, making the game more 'turn based'. There is no way you can convince me that drinking a potion does not require you to lower your defenses. Nor can you convince me that you can step away from me in a sword fight without me following you (assuming I want to).

I predict that in short, the effect of this houserule will be more dead PCs.

I don't know about other DMs, but I cater my encounters to my player's abilities. I don't throw dragons at 1st level characters. If this rule 'weakens' the players, then all I have to do is throw less monsters at them. If they only have 4 characters, then maybe I'll just throw 1 big warg at them, instead of 3 smaller ones. That way the 2 melee fighters can lock the 1 warg in combat up front, while the 2 ranged guys stay safe in the back. I'm not in this to kill PCs.

Something I haven't seen mentioned here (though I could have just missed it) is that the 5' step is equally handy for getting inside the reach of those enormous critters that can smack you 20 or 30 feet away. These are the same creatures that tend to hit HARD, the kind you don't want to be taking AoO's from.

Interesting point, although it only encourages me to change things . Again, this just makes the players change their tactics, depending on the situation. Fighting a giant? Might be a better idea to stay back and take it down with arrows, instead of trying to beat it thru sheer muscle mass. Also might be a good idea to use terrain to your advantage, like hiding in the places big people can't go. That's what I'd do IRL, assuming IRL I was actually a bad ass warrior who could slay giants.

Forcing the players to adapt to different combat situations ensures things stay fresh and interesting. Where's the fun if the players just use the exact same tactic over and over?

 

[Cabled]

Fighting a giant? Might be a better idea to stay back and take it down with arrows, instead of trying to beat it thru sheer muscle mass. Also might be a good idea to use terrain to your advantage, like hiding in the places big people can't go. That's what I'd do IRL, assuming IRL I was actually a bad ass warrior who could slay giants.

Forcing the players to adapt to different combat situations ensures things stay fresh and interesting. Where's the fun if the players just use the exact same tactic over and over?

I suppose that works fine when you assume every encounter takes place out in the wide open with great visibility, plenty of room to run around, and opponents that aren't faster than you. As has been said before in the thread, it's your game and you're welcome to house rule it any way you see fit, but I would strongly urge you to make sure you and your players are on the same page with this one, because it is a MAJOR change to the combat balance of the game as it's designed. I suspect what it will do is remove heroics from the game...those borderline characters, who can only take a couple attacks and know it, simply won't even get in harm's way. The already battered cleric who needs to turtle up and shuffle around that giant to get the fighter who lies smashed and dying behind it for that critical heal will now be taking twice as many attacks and will quickly realize it's not even worth the try. Rogues will get hit the hardest, flanking will become a nightmare.

Try it for a couple sessions, then talk it over...I have my suspicions that you will find it has cascading effects through all sorts of other situations but without playing it for awhile I don't know what they specifically might be. Just a hunch and my two coppers.

 

[Kisanji Arael]

Oh, in addition to what I had before, I assume they don't get this ability when flanked?

 

[IanB]

Forcing the players to adapt to different combat situations ensures things stay fresh and interesting. Where's the fun if the players just use the exact same tactic over and over?

If you want to keep things fresh and interesting you're going to have to change this rule every 3 months or so as players figure out the optimal strategy and then start using it the exact same way over and over. Players are tricky that way.

To put that another way, I don't see rules changes as a very good way to keep a game fresh. It just changes the baseline they're working from, it doesn't mean tactical variety in the long run.

 

[Kisanji Arael]

I just had a minor (bordering on trivial) revelation. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, your problem is not with the ability to take five feet back and begin casting a spell/drinking a potion, but with a person casting from five feet away?

AKA.... you are okay with a fighter with sword and shiled moving back five feet and doing nothing....

But not okay with a person who is already five feet away from another person beginning to drink a potion without the other person noticing?