Why doesn't the 5' step provoke AoO?

[ForceUser]

I think that removing the 5-foot step will greatly increase the value of three feats--Combat Casting, Skill Focus (Concentration), and Still Spell. If, as a wizard, I am not allowed to make a 5-foot adjustment to cast a spell unhindered, I'm going to be damned sure that I can channel that spell anyway. In fact, as a wizard I'd probably take at least two if not three of those feats, and I would upon character creation ensure that I have a Con score of no less than 14, because casting defensively is now much more crucial to survival. At my earliest opportunity, I would ensure that I always had a dimension door spell in place, as well, and false life would be on my short list of "best spells ever." I'd also probably take Craft Wondrous Item and make myself a vest of endurance on top of that--anything to offset my miserable AC and hit points.

 

[harperscout]

I don't envision this changing the game much. Mostly because I don't see the 5-foot step as a life or death matter from my own experience. Sure, a healing potion here or there, but most of the time I see the 5-foot step rule used to cast a spell... that spell isn't always offensive either... generally it is defensive in nature and it usually only occurs for us if we are ambushed and it occurs early in combat.

I don't think that drinking a CLW or a CMW potion is going to be what keeps a player alive to the end of the combat. if the baddie is coming at me, I generally figure out by round 3 that I can't handle the fight and off I run/withdraw to a more defensable position (generally behind the fighter).

I think the alteration is interesting, and I would also like to hear how it works. I don't believe it will change the game much anyway.

 

[ForceUser]

I don't envision this changing the game much. Mostly because I don't see the 5-foot step as a life or death matter from my own experience. Sure, a healing potion here or there, but most of the time I see the 5-foot step rule used to cast a spell... that spell isn't always offensive either... generally it is defensive in nature and it usually only occurs for us if we are ambushed and it occurs early in combat.

I don't think that drinking a CLW or a CMW potion is going to be what keeps a player alive to the end of the combat. if the baddie is coming at me, I generally figure out by round 3 that I can't handle the fight and off I run/withdraw to a more defensable position (generally behind the fighter).

I think the alteration is interesting, and I would also like to hear how it works. I don't believe it will change the game much anyway.

IME 5-foot steps are mostly used by melee combatants to set up or take advantage of flanking situations, or to remove oneself from being flanked by opponents without provoking AoOs. If a DM removes 5-foot steps, he might as well remove AoOs as well.

 

[Nyaricus]

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.

Cool points man, this will get houseruled into my campaign setting - which is low magic, so this does favour fighters who will have less means of dealing with wizards than ever before

if an opponent takes a 5-foot step, you may follow him [not sure what type of action this would be, Swift, immediate, free?] out of turn, but doing so provokes an attack of oppertunity, on you, as normal.

 

[Felnar]

how about this for an idea:
when someone 5' steps back, the battle can 5' step with them (ie. everyone can choose to 5' step with them)
the initial 5' stepper does not provoke AoOs for leaving a threatened square, however everyone else who chooses to move with the battle does provoke AoOs. All movement is simultaneous, and only those who chose to not move can make AoOs.
After all steps/AoOs, the initial stepper finishes their turn.

example 1:
Fighters X and Y, and Wizard Z are walking in a line.
Orc O surprises, charges from the side, and attacks Z.

surprise round
..X..
..ZO.
..Y..

1st round
..X..
.ZO..
..Y..

Z goes first, 5'steps back.
X, Y, and O all get to chose to either follow the movement or stay
where they are and possibly get AoO's.
Being smart, X and Y stand their ground hoping O wont follow Z.
O know he needs to take out Z, so he follows, provoking AoOs from X and Y.
If he survives the AoOs, he threatens Z if Z attempts to cast a spell.
Of course now O is flanked

example 2:
reach weapons vs non-reach
instead of one AoO, then trading 5' steps/fullattacks, now the reach weapon user cant just 5'step back and attack (the non-reach user will step with them, staying out of threatened squares), now they would need to ditch their reach-weapon or use the withdraw action.

well, thats a good start i guess, what say all you?

 

[Coredump]

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'.

No. it is a *fix* for the turn based system.

Everyone that has a problem keeps mentioning the mage. "If the mage moves, the fighter can move with him". Well, how did the fighter get there...
Mage sees fighter 65' away, fighter charges mage, mage 'could' just move and stay out of range, but since this is *turn* based, and it is not the mages turn, he has to just stand there, watch the fighter move 60', and hit the mage upside the head.

No one has trouble with the mage having to stand still....

But when it is the mages turn, and he wants to move *only 5'*, it is 'unrealistic'....

 

[the Jester]

Put me on the list of people who see this as a HUGE change in the combat system. Prepare to rewrite some feats and skills, or for a wholesale change in tactics.

Good luck!

 

[General Barron]

I'm afraid I've led this thread in the wrong direction.

This should be an objective look at what the said rule (5' step not provoking AoO) does to the game. It should not be a subjective look, meaning whether you or I think those effects are good or bad. Mods correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the subjective part belongs in the HR forum, while the objective has its place in this one.

So, with that said, I think the easiest way to look at this objectively would be to guess what would be different about the game if said rule was removed (hence, the step WOULD provoke AoO as normal). Here is what I gather from the above posts, and my own pondering:

--------------------

1) Potions become risky to use in melee. Wands/staves/other magic items (which don't provoke AoO) become more attractive options for healing, etc.

2) Spell use becomes risky, or at least limited, in melee. Quickened spells & concentration skill become much more important for melee casting.

3) Ranged weapons become less desirable in melee, compared to melee weapons.

4) Larger creatures become more dangerous in melee. Ranged weapons, reach weapons, and/or wolf-pack tactics become more desirable due to AoO.

5) Outnumbering the enemy force becomes slightly more advantageous in general.

6) Less gradual-movement between melee fighters (no circling for flanking, etc).

--------------------

I'm sure I missed some, but that seems like a good start. Personally, of the above list, only #6 seems like a negative to me. But that's getting subjective of course: to each his own. In my case, #6 could be solved by saying that you only provoke AoO when you leave a creatures threat range, not when you leave a single threatened square, like in 2nd ed. Anyway, more suggestions about what exactly might change are welcome .

 

[General Barron]

Eh, I hate to be a hypocrite, but this is a great point that I can't leave be:

Mage sees fighter 65' away, fighter charges mage, mage 'could' just move and stay out of range, but since this is *turn* based, and it is not the mages turn, he has to just stand there, watch the fighter move 60', and hit the mage upside the head.

You are completely right about this being a wacky situation, and it did slip my mind. So there is one good argument for 5' step. But with the 5' step, once the fighter has been there for a round, you just get round after round of wackyness as the wizard keeps stepping away from the fighter unopposed. So in my mind its 1 wacky round vs 1+ wacky rounds (current system).

I suppose an easy fix to the above problem would be to simply break the round into two pieces. You run thru the initiative count once, and everyone takes either a move action, or a standard action. Then you run thru it again, and everyone takes whichever action they have left (or finishes their full-round action). Next cycle thru is the new round. AoO are only possible if you didn't move on your last action.

So in the above example, the fighter wins initiative, and takes his move action towards the wizard. The wizard then takes his standard action and shoots a lightning bolt at the fighter. No AoO occurs because the fighter moved on his last action. Next, the fighter takes his standard action and attacks the wizard (or he finishes his full-round charge, and attacks).
The wizard then gets his move action. If he moves away from the fighter, he will now suffer an AoO, since the fighter didn't move on his last action. Wizard does nothing with his move action. Fighter goes again, this time on the 2nd round.

Slightly complicates the rules of course, but not too much really, and the gains seem worth it. The only problem is the 5' step messes things up even more in this situation, but in this case I don't see the need for it at all. Well, at this point I'm breaking my own word, and again turning this into a HR post. Sorry... :\

----------

EDIT

Lol... just realized that this thread HAS been moved to the HR forum. Well, in that case, feel free to discuss my above HR as well .

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I will echo the concerns that changing the 5'step so that it draws AoO is a Bad Thing (tm)

Using Thanee's proposed 5' step of opportunity is interesting.. Eberron has a Feat called Pursue that mirrors this, altho with the addition of burning an Action Point.

DnD Combat is, for better or worse, a generalized approximation of realtime combat but into a framework of turn based actions. In this setting, 5' steps and AoO add some emulation of simulataneous action, but it is still turn based.

I see the OPs issue being one of turn based vs simultaneous, and he wants to fix what {to him} is the most glaring artifact of this. The suggestion to further parse the round doesn't really fix the issue, simply makes it smaller

Changing the 5' step can, depending on the group, either be a huge change, or a minor one. IMC it would only alter in melee tactical positioning, for flanking and such. My ranged folks either stay out or draw swords....

Adding the Pursue option could get interesting...

Either way I don't see it breaking the game. Heck, for the first year or so of 3.x, half the world didn't use AoO's cause they were so hard to understand!

General Barron, I get the feeling that you may be underestimating the ramifications of 'minor' alterations to 3.x games. The horribly nice thing about the 3.x system is that everything meshes quite nicely.. and a butterfly's wing beat causes hurricanes on the other side of the globe...those vocal against the change have seen this artifact of the system at work.