PDA

View Full Version : [3.5E] Five Foot Step



Demonic Spoon
2010-04-16, 04:27 PM
There's a whole slew of rules related to concentration and defensive casting and threatening attacks of opportunity for doing stuff while threatened. However, in my experience this almost never matters because you can just five foot step back before doing your action.

Am I missing something? Does the five foot step rule really work such that you can just use it to automatically get out of almost any threatened situation, or am I misinterpreting something really basic?

Prime32
2010-04-16, 04:29 PM
You can't take any other form of movement in the same turn you take a 5ft step. So you could step back and cast a spell without AoOs... and then the monster steps forward and full attacks you.

Milskidasith
2010-04-16, 04:29 PM
There's a whole slew of rules related to concentration and defensive casting and threatening attacks of opportunity for doing stuff while threatened. However, in my experience this almost never matters because you can just five foot step back before doing your action.

Am I missing something? Does the five foot step rule really work such that you can just use it to automatically get out of almost any threatened situation, or am I misinterpreting something really basic?

You aren't, besides splatbook stuff that makes it harder (thicket of blades, as a key example).

shadow_archmagi
2010-04-16, 04:31 PM
A lot of monsters have reach. Trolls, for example, can hit you even if you've taken a five foot step away. Also, anyone with a spear.

Eldariel
2010-04-16, 04:31 PM
Also, reach. This is why you want Spiked Chain if you actually intend on stopping people from doing anything as a Fighter. Also, Enlarge Person. Natural reach is the most commonly available reason that makes 5' steps useless; tons of monsters have lots of it making life particularly bothersome for PCs.

Also, 5' steps are a broken mechanic. Did you know they were originally intended for smaller Fighters to approach larger creatures without provoking AoOs? Yeah, instead they end up making normal Fighters' presence quite meaningless.

Lord Denyuar
2010-04-16, 04:36 PM
So my question, how would you homebrew a fix so that the initial point of the five-foot step remains in effect without making everyone else' heyday?

term1nally s1ck
2010-04-16, 04:46 PM
You can only 5' step if you remain within threatened squares?

balistafreak
2010-04-17, 06:36 AM
Whenever you take a 5-foot step, all foes that threaten you may take a 5-foot step with you?

That might completely obsolete 5-foot steps, on second thought.

Whenever you take a 5-foot step, you leave a "shadow"; you are considered to be in both your current square and the square five feet away. You are threatened in both squares.

... now that just seems like a headache. :smallannoyed:

Eloel
2010-04-17, 06:39 AM
You can't do anything but melee-attack after you 5-ft step?

Frozen_Feet
2010-04-17, 06:53 AM
I recall some variant ruleset having a "disengagement contest" for leaving a threatened area with 5-foot steps. You could only move without provoking an AoO if you beat an opposed roll against your opponent.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-04-17, 06:57 AM
Did you know they were originally intended for smaller Fighters to approach larger creatures without provoking AoOs?

That's extremely interesting. I can't describe how intrigued I am by this revelation. In fact, on second reading, my attempt to do so seems almost sarcastic - I assure you, it is not.

Do you have further reading on the topic?

Amphetryon
2010-04-17, 07:03 AM
There's a whole slew of rules related to concentration and defensive casting and threatening attacks of opportunity for doing stuff while threatened. However, in my experience this almost never matters because you can just five foot step back before doing your action.

Am I missing something? Does the five foot step rule really work such that you can just use it to automatically get out of almost any threatened situation, or am I misinterpreting something really basic?

You're not missing anything. I had a Sorcerer use a Longspear for the 'benefits' a reach weapon provided; the DM simply had every monster with above animal INT make use of 5' step rules to completely negate the Longspear's AoO.

Runestar
2010-04-17, 07:29 AM
Also, 5' steps are a broken mechanic. Did you know they were originally intended for smaller Fighters to approach larger creatures without provoking AoOs? Yeah, instead they end up making normal Fighters' presence quite meaningless.

If that was the case, then the designers seriously had no idea what they were doing, since monsters could simply 5-ft away during their turn, thus maintaining the same distance away from the fighter while continuing to attack him with its superior reach. The fighter would then be forced to spend a move action getting adjacent to the monster, leaving him unable to full-attack.

If you are worried about the wizard moving, then ready an action to hit him when he does anything?

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-17, 07:31 AM
If that was the case, then the designers seriously had no idea what they were doing, since monsters could simply 5-ft away during their turn, thus maintaining the same distance away from the fighter while continuing to attack him with its superior reach. The fighter would then be forced to spend a move action getting adjacent to the monster, leaving him unable to full-attack.

If you are worried about the wizard moving, then ready an action to hit him when he does anything?

Not to mention stopped via a trip attack that the AoO from the move provoked.

GreyVulpine
2010-04-17, 08:29 AM
Spice it up with difficult terrain. You can't take 5 foot steps in it. Marshy area, rubble, overgrown areas, deserts... anywhere where movement costs are changed.

Runestar
2010-04-17, 08:58 AM
In which case the wizard just abrupt-jaunts 10-ft away and blasts the heck out of you. :smallbiggrin:

Eldariel
2010-04-17, 09:27 AM
That's extremely interesting. I can't describe how intrigued I am by this revelation. In fact, on second reading, my attempt to do so seems almost sarcastic - I assure you, it is not.

Do you have further reading on the topic?

Don't have a link off-hand. Maybe someone else here has it; if not, I can try to dig it up.


If that was the case, then the designers seriously had no idea what they were doing, since monsters could simply 5-ft away during their turn, thus maintaining the same distance away from the fighter while continuing to attack him with its superior reach. The fighter would then be forced to spend a move action getting adjacent to the monster, leaving him unable to full-attack.

Fighter 5' steps in, monster 5' steps out, Fighter 5' steps in; that works just fine. The idea was, I understand, that when a Large creature attacks you, you can 5' step in and full attack without provoking.


If you are worried about the wizard moving, then ready an action to hit him when he does anything?

Well, that's an excellent way to waste a full attack. And yeah, it's a rather stupid mechanic.

Optimystik
2010-04-17, 09:29 AM
If you are worried about the wizard moving, then ready an action to hit him when he does anything?

To which he responds by readying an action to Abrupt Jaunt if you do anything.

nyjastul69
2010-04-17, 09:50 AM
Also, 5' steps are a broken mechanic. Did you know they were originally intended for smaller Fighters to approach larger creatures without provoking AoOs? Yeah, instead they end up making normal Fighters' presence quite meaningless.

That's quite a claim. Source citation please.

awa
2010-04-17, 09:54 AM
I was vaguely considering allowing in a rules light game that characters who still had movement left over from their turn could follow foes that backed up. My thoughts for this weren't just about 5 foot steps but also regular movement in real life you don't take turns moving in a fight every one moves at the same time it seems silly that you can just back away like in dungeons and dragons

Draz74
2010-04-17, 10:03 AM
So my question, how would you homebrew a fix so that the initial point of the five-foot step remains in effect without making everyone else' heyday?

IMO, while it doesn't solve the whole problem, the 4e version of the 5-foot step is much more elegant rules-wise: a five-foot step simply takes a move action. It doesn't prohibit further movement. So you can do it twice in a turn if you take a double move; you don't need a "Withdraw" action in the rules anymore, since it's replaced by taking a 5-foot step and then moving; and so on.

Of course, just plopping this into 3e as-is ends up being a nasty nerf to melee characters, since suddenly they can't 5-foot step and full attack. You'd pretty much have to combine it with the house rule that a full attack only requires a standard action.

Eldariel
2010-04-17, 10:20 AM
That's quite a claim. Source citation please.

As I said, I don't have the source off-hand. I do remember reading that though. I'll try to dig it up.

nyjastul69
2010-04-17, 11:02 AM
As I said, I don't have the source off-hand. I do remember reading that though. I'll try to dig it up.

There was supposed to be a ? at the end of the last sentence. It wasn't meant as a command. I wasn't trying to be snarky, but it may have come across that way. If so, I apologize.

FishAreWet
2010-04-17, 11:36 AM
There is also the fact that a DC 15 Tumble check can avoid all movement based AoOs. which is trivial to make past level 5.

Darastin
2010-04-17, 12:42 PM
So my question, how would you homebrew a fix so that the initial point of the five-foot step remains in effect without making everyone else' heyday?
We don't allow 5' steps out of a threatened space and then using a ranged attack or concentration-dependant ability (including spells). Never worded it exactly, but everyone knows the intention of the houserule, so it works.

Ultimately, it all boils down to a fundamental design mistake in the rules: Movement taking actions. That's causing the problems with full attacks - notice that when two regular melee combatants meet, the one acting first is at a disadvantage. If movement were seperate from other actions, things might be a lot easier...

Just my two Euro-cents;
Darastin

awa
2010-04-17, 12:44 PM
if you take ranks in tumble few classes get it as a class skill and no one really has enough skills as it is not to mention armor check penalties

Koury
2010-04-17, 12:56 PM
My wizards almost always take ranks in Tumble, despite being CC. Combined with the fact Dex is usually my second highest score (assuming something decent is left for Con), yeah, I can make that DC 15 with little trouble.

Even at level 1, 2 ranks + 3 Dex = 50%

And if I fail? Abrupt Jaunt, of course :smallbiggrin:

Flickerdart
2010-04-17, 01:09 PM
To which he responds by readying an action to Abrupt Jaunt if you do anything.
He doesn't need to, it's an Immediate action.

Thurbane
2010-04-17, 06:48 PM
Whenever you take a 5-foot step, all foes that threaten you may take a 5-foot step with you?
I've played in a game that used that exact rule. It made things...messy. There were constant rule quibbles about fully implementing this.

yilduz
2010-04-17, 07:08 PM
Why not just make it so the 5-ft rule only applies when approaching something (moving into a threatened area, through another threatened area, or such)? If moving out of a threatened area and into a non-threatened area, the 5-ft rule doesn't apply.

Makes sense to me.

My friend (one that always tried to find "loopholes in the system" no matter what we were playing or trying to do) often talked about taking a 5-ft step out of combat then running like mad to get out of combat so he can avoid the AoO.

sofawall
2010-04-17, 07:13 PM
My friend (one that always tried to find "loopholes in the system" no matter what we were playing or trying to do) often talked about taking a 5-ft step out of combat then running like mad to get out of combat so he can avoid the AoO.

Well, considering you aren't allowed to make a 5 ft. step in the same round you use a move action to move, that hole was plugged fairly well.

Eldariel
2010-04-17, 07:34 PM
Why not just make it so the 5-ft rule only applies when approaching something (moving into a threatened area, through another threatened area, or such)? If moving out of a threatened area and into a non-threatened area, the 5-ft rule doesn't apply.

How I do it: 5' step may only be taken as a part of full melee attack action and only towards the opponent you are attacking. Worked perfectly thus far. As I allow full attack as a standard action anyways, it's basically giving up your move action to avoid AoO (but not the same as that would basically do nothing about the problem since casters cast as standard actions so they could afford it anyways)

John Campbell
2010-04-18, 07:23 PM
Also, 5' steps are a broken mechanic. Did you know they were originally intended for smaller Fighters to approach larger creatures without provoking AoOs? Yeah, instead they end up making normal Fighters' presence quite meaningless.

Which doesn't really work anyway.

I mean, in order to avoid taking a single attack of opportunity as we charge through the monster's reach, and getting a charge attack at the end of that (and, okay, in core, that doesn't mean "obliterate the monster with a million points of pouncing Shock Trooper Leap Attack", but still, it's an attack), we're going to eat multiple full-attacks as we mince our way through its threatened zone at 5' per round, and not come into range for several turns (assuming that the monster ever lets us into range at all, which it doesn't have to do).

Yeah, let's think about this plan...

Eldariel
2010-04-18, 07:56 PM
Which doesn't really work anyway.

I mean, in order to avoid taking a single attack of opportunity as we charge through the monster's reach, and getting a charge attack at the end of that (and, okay, in core, that doesn't mean "obliterate the monster with a million points of pouncing Shock Trooper Leap Attack", but still, it's an attack), we're going to eat multiple full-attacks as we mince our way through its threatened zone at 5' per round, and not come into range for several turns (assuming that the monster ever lets us into range at all, which it doesn't have to do).

Yeah, let's think about this plan...

It does work in against Large creatures though; if the monster attacks first, you get your full attack without AoO. But yeah. As I understand, the biggest reason are the early Larges like Ogres and Trolls, and reach weapons. But...I've been unable to find the post where I read it thus far...

The Shadowmind
2010-04-18, 08:08 PM
Well, considering you aren't allowed to make a 5 ft. step in the same round you use a move action to move, that hole was plugged fairly well.

There already is an action for that purpose, Withdrawal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsincombat.htm#withdraw), you lost your chance to attack doing it, but if running away is the goal, it works.

John Campbell
2010-04-19, 10:29 PM
It does work in against Large creatures though; if the monster attacks first, you get your full attack without AoO. But yeah. As I understand, the biggest reason are the early Larges like Ogres and Trolls, and reach weapons. But...I've been unable to find the post where I read it thus far...

No... no, it doesn't.

You move in 10' away, and stop there so as to avoid provoking the AoO. You cannot reach the troll, so you can't attack this turn. The troll full-attacks you and then five-foot-steps away. You are now 15' away, too far to five-foot-step into range, so you're right back where you started, having to move through its reach again... except that you're down a bunch of hit points from eating a full attack from a big melee monster. Rinse, repeat.

But that wasn't really my point. My point was that, even if the troll does not five-foot-step away, using five-foot-steps to approach through its reach means that, instead of taking one AoO from it before getting an attack in Round One, you're taking an entire full attack, and not getting an attack until Round Two. At the earliest.

And if it's got more than 10' of reach, you're taking multiple full attacks instead of still just the one AoO.

arguskos
2010-04-19, 10:37 PM
No... no, it doesn't.

You move in 10' away, and stop there so as to avoid provoking the AoO. You cannot reach the troll, so you can't attack this turn. The troll full-attacks you and then five-foot-steps away. You are now 15' away, too far to five-foot-step into range, so you're right back where you started, having to move through its reach again... except that you're down a bunch of hit points from eating a full attack from a big melee monster. Rinse, repeat.
The scenario was envisioned as follows:
Troll charges you, and stops 10' away to full attack.
You 5' in and full attack back.

Course, there's like 20 reasons why that's not enough of an argument to support 5' steps.

erikun
2010-04-19, 10:54 PM
You move in 10' away, and stop there so as to avoid provoking the AoO. You cannot reach the troll, so you can't attack this turn. The troll full-attacks you and then five-foot-steps away. You are now 15' away, too far to five-foot-step into range, so you're right back where you started, having to move through its reach again... except that you're down a bunch of hit points from eating a full attack from a big melee monster. Rinse, repeat.
The idea is to stop 15' away (or more realistically, 20' away) and force the troll to move towards you. Next turn, you 5' step towards the troll and full attack. It still isn't effective if the troll doesn't want to attack you, though.

Eldariel
2010-04-19, 10:55 PM
No... no, it doesn't.

You move in 10' away, and stop there so as to avoid provoking the AoO. You cannot reach the troll, so you can't attack this turn. The troll full-attacks you and then five-foot-steps away. You are now 15' away, too far to five-foot-step into range, so you're right back where you started, having to move through its reach again... except that you're down a bunch of hit points from eating a full attack from a big melee monster. Rinse, repeat.

But that wasn't really my point. My point was that, even if the troll does not five-foot-step away, using five-foot-steps to approach through its reach means that, instead of taking one AoO from it before getting an attack in Round One, you're taking an entire full attack, and not getting an attack until Round Two. At the earliest.

The point was that you let the Troll act first. You don't move within 10'. If you act first, Troll is flat-footed and denied AoOs so you just charge it. If Troll acts first, it charges you, hits you from 10' away, you 5' step in and full attack. Without 5' step, Troll would charge you, hit you and then you'd move up and it'd hit you again.

EDIT: I'm really slow today, am I not?

Roderick_BR
2010-04-20, 09:32 AM
If that was the case, then the designers seriously had no idea what they were doing, since monsters could simply 5-ft away during their turn, thus maintaining the same distance away from the fighter while continuing to attack him with its superior reach. The fighter would then be forced to spend a move action getting adjacent to the monster, leaving him unable to full-attack.
Kinda true story. In Fallout 2, one of the earlest encounters is with a damaged robot near a fallen plane. All action (attacks, use itens, and movement) costs "action points", meaning that, if you have enough, you can move and/or attack several times. Some creatures/weapons allow you to take either move or attack actions several times for a very low action point cost.
So, this robot, it can only give a small step, and then attack you once. If you start the round close to him, he attacks you 4 or 6 times, however, so, to beat him you just need to hit him 1-2 times, step back, wait for him to close in and hit you once, then hit 1-2 times again, rinse and repeat. You can destroy it with your bare hands. 5ft step and full attack works the same way in D&D.

As for casters using the 5ft step: He uses it to get out of the enemy's threatened area, then he uses the rest of his movement action to move away to avoid a full attack the next round, and use the remanining default action to cast spells, so, no, a monster usually won't make a 5ft step after him and full attack, unless he get reach, as was pointed out.

BRC
2010-04-20, 09:33 AM
As for casters using the 5ft step: He uses it to get out of the enemy's threatened area, then he uses the rest of his movement action to move away to avoid a full attack the next round, and use the remanining default action to cast spells, so, no, a monster usually won't make a 5ft step after him and full attack, unless he get reach, as was pointed out.
Except you can't take a 5 ft step if you take any other move action that round. So you can't 5-ft step, then move normally.

Il_Vec
2010-04-20, 10:34 AM
I don't know how to make those nice boxes, but there it is, please read before saying "5 foot step then move away":

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#take5FootStep

You can only take a 5-foot step if you do NOT use any action to move in any way that turn. Aside from that, you can still use all and any move-actions or any other actions, that do not result in moving.

Zeta Kai
2010-04-20, 01:27 PM
So, in summation, the silly 5' step rule exists because AoOs exist. An AoOs are extremely silly & a situational nightmare, made obsolete by the invention of immediate actions.

The more I find out about how the D20 system was originally designed, the more I marvel at how it works at all. Someone must have sold the AoO thing really hard, because its existence really screws up the entire melee combat system.

Mythestopheles
2010-04-20, 04:36 PM
Is there a way to rewrite the AoO system?

Eldariel
2010-04-20, 05:05 PM
Is there a way to rewrite the AoO system?

I actually think it works quite well; melee combat is many more hits than what you can fit into a round, but the rolls present the ones that get through. When someone lowers their guard, they're allowing you an extra chance to hit hence the AoO.

Really, bow AoOs don't make sense, but melee AoOs are quite functional, as long as it's not assumed that they're supposed to be the thing restricting movement.

Doug Lampert
2010-04-20, 05:22 PM
IMO, while it doesn't solve the whole problem, the 4e version of the 5-foot step is much more elegant rules-wise: a five-foot step simply takes a move action. It doesn't prohibit further movement. So you can do it twice in a turn if you take a double move; you don't need a "Withdraw" action in the rules anymore, since it's replaced by taking a 5-foot step and then moving; and so on.

Of course, just plopping this into 3e as-is ends up being a nasty nerf to melee characters, since suddenly they can't 5-foot step and full attack. You'd pretty much have to combine it with the house rule that a full attack only requires a standard action.

And that's bad how? :)

I mean really, is melee so overpowered in 3.x that letting them full attack on a move would be bad? This sounds like a win-win to me.

FishAreWet
2010-04-20, 05:28 PM
I mean really, is melee so overpowered in 3.x that letting them full attack on a move would be bad? This sounds like a win-win to me.The issue with 3.5e and melee isn't that melee can't hit hard enough. It's that casters can hit just as hard, or harder, in the same way and more.

Show me a pure martial characters and I'll show you a gish that can one up him in every way. Now try to buff martial abilities and you're just making that gish stronger.

Ashram
2010-04-20, 05:47 PM
This is exactly why in Pathfinder, there's a feat called "Step Up". Low level fighter runs up and takes a whack at a wizard. Wizard wants to 5'-step back and cast a spell? Step Up allows Fighter to step back with the wizard so he still provokes an attack of opportunity.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-20, 07:00 PM
How I do it: 5' step may only be taken as a part of full melee attack action and only towards the opponent you are attacking. Worked perfectly thus far. As I allow full attack as a standard action anyways, it's basically giving up your move action to avoid AoO (but not the same as that would basically do nothing about the problem since casters cast as standard actions so they could afford it anyways)

So, if you're going against something with good reach, it's useless?

Let's look at this: Fighter with reach weapon, 10 foot reach.

Large enemy with reach weapon, 15-20 foot reach.

Large enemy charges, attacks from 20 feet away.
Fighter can't 5 foot step and attack, so he has to eat one on any movement he makes.

snoopy13a
2010-04-20, 07:33 PM
As for trying to close the gap on a reach fighter:

It isn't an ideal situation, but there is the tower shield. You advance under total cover (but you give up an attack that round) to get within 5' (one can't attack a character in total cover so you don't get hit with the AoO). After this, if the large enemy steps back 5', you can move forward 5'.

Eldariel
2010-04-20, 07:44 PM
So, if you're going against something with good reach, it's useless?

Let's look at this: Fighter with reach weapon, 10 foot reach.

Large enemy with reach weapon, 15-20 foot reach.

Large enemy charges, attacks from 20 feet away.
Fighter can't 5 foot step and attack, so he has to eat one on any movement he makes.

That's a problem that exists without any changes to the rule. I'm not trying to make Fighters immune to AoOs, I'm just trying to return 5' step to function as it should. Though your point is fair; should someone, who is approaching to attack on a longer distance be considered to be vulnerable enough to be a viable target for AoOs?

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-20, 08:19 PM
That's a problem that exists without any changes to the rule. I'm not trying to make Fighters immune to AoOs, I'm just trying to return 5' step to function as it should. Though your point is fair; should someone, who is approaching to attack on a longer distance be considered to be vulnerable enough to be a viable target for AoOs?

The issue is? If reach is greater than a 5' difference, the fighter just lost the free action method for backing up to use a range attack. If you allow 5 foot steps to be taken as a part of any full attack action, then you continue to let fighters have versatility, whilst denying the 5 foot step to people who aren't meaningfully engaging a foe.

To balance it, you must attack any foe you deny an AoO in this manner. So, if you step out of the threatened zone of 2 enemies, you must attack each. If you do not, whichever you don't attack gets an AoO. Now multiple foes can effectively pin down a foe, by offering too many threats to 5 foot out of.