Why doesn't the 5' step provoke AoO?

[Infiniti2000]

I am playing Hero Protagonist.

That would be Hiro Protagonist.

 

[Digital M@]

I agree with the masses, that 5' steps resulting in AoO will remove many tacticle facets of the game.

Like you, I hate the idea of a 5' step being able to so safely remove yourself from combat you can do whatever you want such as drink potions, cast spells and shoot bows. I took the approach of the follow up 5' step. If you are fighting and need to take a 5' step back, your opponent may immediately, follow you those 5'. If you and another PC are fighting the same opponent side by side, then the opponent cannot follow you.

I have found it adds a lot to the game. Protecting magic users and the placement of archers becomes much more important for both sides. The benefits of rushing head on into a magic user also becomes more beneficial. It is a two way street and the DM now faces the same tacticle weaknesses, but I have enjoyed it and think it works well for the game.

 

[Imret]

That being said, I would recommend that a character may "move with" a five foot step, but doing so provokes an attack of opportunity. (snip) 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. (snip)

Yoink! As far as I'm concerned, that's the perfect approach to the 5' step.

A thought I had on the subject, also...
-----
I admit to not, myself, being a hand-to-hand combat type. Nevertheless, a lot of people are discussing the 5' step in a one-on-one combat, like a personal duel or martial arts challenge. There are very, very few D&D combats that happen that way. Spellcasters are hurling fire and lightning, archers and crossbowmen can flank by spell or mount, there are more warriors than just the two of you, and there are also horrible monsters in the countryside*. (*I know not all campaigns feature all these things.)

Gorash the hobgoblin is, along with his warband, locked in mortal combat with some adventurers. He's seen one of them has a bow, one of them's a wizard, but he's currently putting a heavy rain of blows on a human in splint and things are going well for him. Suddenly, his foe hacks at Gorash's blade to knock it aside for a moment, then shuffles backwards a few feet, shield hand dipping down. This could be because:
a) He's badly injured and stepping back to heal himself with a potion or spell.
b) The wizard has signaled him somehow and he's getting out of what's about to be a blast area.
c) He's giving the elf a clearer shot at Gorash's tender internal organs.
d) One of his allies is mounted and about to run Gorash down.
e) Something awful is charging out of the woods/cave/swamp and Gorash just became the only thing in front of it.
f) He's retreating.
g) He's trying to lure Gorash into charging after him so he can thrust that sword into Gorash's aforementioned organs.

While Gorash glances about quickly to insure he's not about to die by misadventure or surprise, the human snatches up a potion flask, pries the cork free with his teeth, and downs it in a single swallow, pressing the attack with renewed vigor. Had Gorash charged after him, there's a distinct chance the human would have put the sword in him.
-------
Sometimes "realism" means "rethinking the abstract rules".

 

[lastalas]

Perhaps we have different opinions on what an AoO means. Picture someone, in the middle of a sword-fight, pulling a bottle out of a belt, then uncorking and drinking it. During that time, would they be able to defend themselves just as well as if they were only fighting? I have a hard time believing that. Same goes for someone shooting a bow at a guy 30' away, when an enemy is right next to him trying to cut his head off (shooting at the guy next to him would seem ok though). Depending on how complex you picture spellcasting to be, the same would also apply.

Taking a 5' step allows the player only 1 standard action. It requiers a standard action to retrieve something from our backpack. Therefore, the person steps back, rummages in their pack, then the opponent 5' steps and cuts him in two.

The only way one can 5' step and drink a potion is if the potion is already in hand. If that is the case, then they deal with the consequences of having 1 and occupied by an easily breakable bottle.

The 5' step would not allow anyone to both retrieve and drink...it would require 2 rounds and 2 5' steps. This would be a poor choice of tactics.

 

[Kid Socrates]

That would be Hiro Protagonist.

Yeah, I know, but didn't want to turn my entire scenario into a Snow Crash riff, mostly because I haven't read the book in about two years.

 

[Azlan]

For all those here yammering about how unrealistic, unfair, and/or un-fun it would be, taking away the 5'-step loophole that allows one to avoid an AoO while drinking a potion; consider this...

Potions of healing are pretty cheap, right? So, humanoid opponents of CR 1 or better should be able to afford and use potions of healing. But why keep those potions in their footlockers or in hidey holes, or even in their backpacks, for the player characters to find and keep for themselves, after the humanoids are dispatched? Why shouldn't these humanoids keep their potions handy in combat, just like player characters do? And so, why shouldn't these humanoids take 5' steps back in the middle of combat and drink their healing potions, thus prolonging the fight?

Well, if a DM does this often enough, I bet before long the players will be yammering about how unrealistic, unfair, and un-fun that is.

 

[Kid Socrates]

For all those here yammering about how unrealistic, unfair, and/or un-fun it would be, taking away the 5'-step loophole that allows one to avoid an AoO while drinking a potion; consider this...

Potions of healing are pretty cheap, right? So, humanoid opponents of CR 1 or better should be able to afford and use potions of healing. But why keep those potions in their footlockers or in hidey holes, or even in their backpacks, for the player characters to find and keep for themselves, after the humanoids are dispatched? Why shouldn't these humanoids keep their potions handy in combat, just like player characters do? And so, why shouldn't these humanoids take 5' steps back in the middle of combat and drink their healing potions, thus prolonging the fight?

Well, if a DM does this often enough, I bet before long the players will be yammering about how unrealistic, unfair, and un-fun that is.

If the DM does anything enough, it'll drive the players nuts, and they will yammer about how unrealistic, unfair, and un-fun it is. I don't think there's anything wrong with allowing a way to counter the five-foot step, but I think there is something wrong with removing it, as you take away a certain amount of player power in regards to staying alive.

 

[Imperialus]

Perhaps we have different opinions on what an AoO means. Picture someone, in the middle of a sword-fight, pulling a bottle out of a belt, then uncorking and drinking it. During that time, would they be able to defend themselves just as well as if they were only fighting? I have a hard time believing that. Same goes for someone shooting a bow at a guy 30' away, when an enemy is right next to him trying to cut his head off (shooting at the guy next to him would seem ok though). Depending on how complex you picture spellcasting to be, the same would also apply.

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.

Ok, picture a fighter who wants to drink a potion but he's in a fight with an orc with somthing sharp. Not wanting to get poked while he drinks his potion he ducks down and flings some dirt in the orcs face before jumping out of the way, pulling his potion out and shotguning it like a can of Black Label at an ACDC concert. That his how a 5 foot step seems to me at least.

 

[Nac_Mac_Feegle]

Well for my 2p, I would say this would drastically change the combat, and NOT in the DM's favour. More times than I care to mention has the Bad guy needed that 5 foot step to get off a spell to escape/complete the ritual etc, if he couldnt 5' for free, he'd be a dead man.

Our casters and archers do stay out of melee range if they can help it, or fighters and rogues control the battlefield, more often than not, we only use 5' step to get that perfect position, its the enemy, controlled by the GM, that need the 5' step to survive.

Feegle Out

 

[General Barron]

I don't think there's anything wrong with allowing a way to counter the five-foot step, but I think there is something wrong with removing it, as you take away a certain amount of player power in regards to staying alive.

Now I'm totally confused. Who said anything about removing it? All I was talking about was making it provoke an AoO, like any other movement. You say that you have no problem with "allowing a way to counter" it. Okay, my idea to "counter it" is to make it provoke AoO. Players can still take it if they want, they just have to take a slight risk to do so. How would you 'counter' it?

Ok, picture a fighter who wants to drink a potion but he's in a fight with an orc with somthing sharp. Not wanting to get poked while he drinks his potion he ducks down and flings some dirt in the orcs face before jumping out of the way, pulling his potion out and shotguning it like a can of Black Label at an ACDC concert. That his how a 5 foot step seems to me at least.

Exactly. The fighter backs up, the orc fails his attack roll, so the fighter drinks the potion unscathed. The only difference is, now there is a chance that the fighter might fail to distract the orc, and instead take a hit. What is wrong with rolling for this?

----------

This is starting to turn into a really weird argument. It seems that the complaint is "it will make things harder for the players", because they won't be able to use healing potions without a little bit of risk. Last time I checked, (a) potions aren't the only magic capable of healing, and (b) as the DM, I get to control the difficulty of my encounters. So all I have to do is throw less/weaker monsters at the players, and I'll get the same challenge, except the players (IMO) will have to think harder about what they do in battle. Sounds fine to me.