Net and Trident help !!!

[evyldead]

Hi all, I am in a campaign and we have had a keep to go back too and swap out characters if we want and I have been playing the same old character since the beginning of the game and well i want to make something new. I had the idea to make a Net and Trident build and I only came across one single feat in the complete warrior to help the build. I have access to PHB, DMG, MM and all the complete books ( complete warrior, arcane, etc.)help on the build much appreciated..... classes, feats, skills, stats, that kinda stuff..... OH and armors and special enhancements for weapons / armor... Thank you!! :)

IN D&D 3.5 e PLEASE!!!!

[Deox]

One of the best uses I've found for Net & Trident style is actually using skirmish:

5ft step, throw net, 5ft step again, skirmish activates and you get a full attack.

This hinges on hitting and winning your opposed strength check. A decent combo would be ranger/scout using swift hunter using a Feycraft trident (DMG 2, allows the weapon to be used with weapon finesse).

Are flaws allowed? If so, feats like this may work:
Human: Weapon Focus: Trident
1st - Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Net
Flaw: Jotunbrud (if not allowed, get Weapon Finesse)
Flaw: Combat Reflexes
3rd: Close Quarters Fighting
6th: Swift Hunter

Depending on how much Ranger you take, you can snag some Two-Weapon fighting goodness (2nd gets Two-Weapon Fighting, 6th gets Improved, and 11 gets Greater).

Add in Hold the Line, Robilar's Gambit, and possibly the Mage Slayer line.

[evyldead]

I was thinking on that skirmish ability, I don't recall the book its in though... So I'd have to look. I was thinking on getting that feat throw the net 5-ft. step then full attack but i don't know if that skirmish ability is allowed( Is it in complete adventurer as the scout class??). If i can't use the scout I was thinking on 2 fighter and going the rest into rogue for the sneak attack for when you win that strength check they will be on the ground denied their dex bonus(if I'm correct on this) and sneak attack every hit.

[Gwendol]

Crusader is perhaps a better option for this. And I agree on the scout: I don't see how skirmish is activated through 5' steps.

[evyldead]

I can't use ToB. ;/

[evyldead]

Books I can use are DMG 3.5 , MM 3.5 , PHB 3.5 , Complete Warrior , Complete Arcane , Complete Divine , Miniatures Handbook. Any other book i will have to take it up with my DM and most likly no since it is a created world next to Faerun.

[Greenish]

If i can't use the scout I was thinking on 2 fighter and going the rest into rogue for the sneak attack for when you win that strength check they will be on the ground denied their dex bonus(if I'm correct on this) and sneak attack every hit.Net and Trident doesn't make the target prone, and prone enemies aren't denied their Dex bonus anyway.

[Darrin]

This is the Net & Trident Swift Hunter build I came up with for the TWF OffHandbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15034585#post15034585):

This build uses a weapon style feat to get a second 5' step after throwing a net, triggering Skirmish damage. It's a bit too tight on feats, though, so you have to use the Planar Ranger variant (Planar Handbook) to get Knowledge: the Planes 8, which allows you to take the Planar Touchstone feat and grab EWP:Net + WF:Net from the War domain power. If your character's religion might be a sticking point, you can choose to worship Istus (Living Greyhawk Deities 2.0), Sotillion (Living Greyhawk Deities 2.0), or Marduk (Sandstorm), all of whom have Favored Weapon: Net.

Race: Human, Azurin, Strongheart Halfing, Frostblood Orc/Half-Orc
1) Ranger 1. Feat: Travel Devotion, Bonus: Weapon Focus Trident, Bonus: Track
2) Ranger 2. Bonus: TWF
3) Scout 1. Feat: Quickdraw. Skirmish 1d6
4) Scout 2. Skirmish 1d6.
5) Scout 3. Skirmish 1d6AC+1
6) Scout 4. Feat: Planar Touchstone -> War Domain (Net). Skirmish 2d6AC+1. Bonus: Swift Hunter.
7) Ranger 3. Bonus: Endurance. Skirmish 2d6AC+2
8) Exotic Weapon Master 1. Close-Quarters Ranged Combat.
9) Ranger 4. Feat: Net and Trident Style
10) Ranger 5. Skirmish 3d6AC+2
11) Ranger 6. Bonus: Improved TWF
12) Highland Stalker 1. Feat: Oversize TWF
13) Highland Stalker 2. Skirmish 4d6AC+2
14) Ranger 7. Skirmish 4d6AC+3
15) Ranger 8. Feat: Improved Skirmish
16) Ranger 9. Skirmish 5d6AC+3/7d6AC+5
17) Ranger 10.
18) Ranger 11. Feat: Travel Devotion (x2). Bonus: Greater TWF. Skirmish 6d6AC+4/8d6AC+6
19) Ranger 12.
20) Ranger 13. Skirmish 7d6AC+4/9d6AC+6


I haven't had a chance to try it out yet. If your DM gets persnickety about the Planar Touchstone thing, you can swap out some of the Ranger levels for a Fighter dip. You'll miss out on 1d6 skirmish damage, but you can get that back with maybe two levels of Dragon Devotee later.

You may run into some issues switching from dual-wielding two tridents to one trident + net. Glove of the Master Strategist (3600 GP) might be the best solution here, but that wasn't on your list of available sources. Glove of Storing works just as well, it's just more expensive (10000 GP). Until you can afford it, just carry a lot of backup tridents so you can drop your offhand trident as a free action, draw your next net as a free action, throw the net, draw another trident as a free action.

[Fax Celestis]

Crusader is perhaps a better option for this. And I agree on the scout: I don't see how skirmish is activated through 5' steps.

Skirmish's requirement is 'moved 10' under your own volition within one round'. It doesn't care how you move, just that you're 10' away from where you started your turn.

[Andezzar]

5ft step, throw net, 5ft step again, skirmish activates and you get a full attack.You don't usually get two 5 ft steps. If you move more than a 5 ft step, you cannot use a Full Attack. None of the feats you mentioned changes that.

[Greenish]

You don't usually get two 5 ft steps. If you move more than a 5 ft step, you cannot use a Full Attack. None of the feats you mentioned changes that.Net and Trident could be read to do that. Otherwise, it doesn't really do anything you don't already get from TWF.

[Fax Celestis]

As a full-round action, you can make a combined attack with your net and trident. First, you throw your net; if you hit and successfully control your foe by winning the opposed Strength check, you may immediately take a 5-foot step toward your opponent and make a full attack with your trident.

You can 5' step independently of your full-round action, and the description of how this feat works is identical to how you can already use your full-attack action.



If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.

The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.

If you get multiple attacks because your base attack bonus is high enough, you must make the attacks in order from highest bonus to lowest. If you are using two weapons, you can strike with either weapon first. If you are using a double weapon, you can strike with either part of the weapon first.

Take your 5' step, then activate the defined full-round action granted to you by Net and Trident (which includes a 5' step) and move an additional 5', thereby moving a total of 10' and triggering Skirmish.

Between the prerequisites and the definition of the full-attack action, this feat does absolutely nothing otherwise.

[evyldead]

The feat Net and Trident in complete warrior if you hit them with the net make the strength check then you get to move 5' and make a full attack action.

[Undead Pebble]

From the SRD on 5-ft steps


If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.

You cannot use your normal 5ft step if you are going to move using the net and trident feat. So this build does not work.

[Andezzar]

Net and Trident could be read to do that. Otherwise, it doesn't really do anything you don't already get from TWF.

You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement.That rule is not overridden by Net and Trident.

Even without the extra 5 ft step, the feat gives you something. After the attack with the net you still get the entire Full Attack with the Trident and not full Attack minus the attack at the highest AB. Once the net is gone and you get a full attack with the trident you are not twfing anymore, so no -4.

[Greenish]

Mmn, but Net and Trident states that "…you may immediately take a 5-foot step toward your opponent…", no ifs or buts (like "…if you haven't already taken your 5' this round").

[Benthesquid]

Mmn, but Net and Trident states that "…you may immediately take a 5-foot step toward your opponent…", no ifs or buts (like "…if you haven't already taken your 5' this round").

Right, but then you'll have moved, so the first five foot step won't be valid. Much like you can't take a five foot step and then a move action, even though at the time you take the five foot step, you wouldn't have moved.

[Andezzar]

Mmn, but Net and Trident states that "…you may immediately take a 5-foot step toward your opponent…", no ifs or buts (like "…if you haven't already taken your 5' this round").A 5ft step is a defined (non-)action, which comes with certain limitations. If those limitations were to be lifted, the feat would have to say so or not use the term 5 ft step. For example: "You immediately move 5 ft towards your opponent, which does/does not provoke an AoO and does/does not count towards your maximum movement per turn." would give you a movement distance of 5 ft but would not be subject to the limitations of a 5 ft step.

[Greenish]

If the feat specifically lets me do X if I do Y, then I can do X, no matter Z.

[Benthesquid]

If the feat specifically lets me do X if I do Y, then I can do X, no matter Z.

By my reading, you can take a five foot step as outlined in the feat. You cannot take that other five foot step earlier in the turn.

Alternatively- if the rule says that I cannot do X if I do Y, than I cannot do X, no matter Z.

[Undead Pebble]

If the feat specifically lets me do X if I do Y, then I can do X, no matter Z.

The 5ft step from the feat is fine, but you cannot make your usual 5ft step in the same round, since you are doing some form of movement in the same round.

[Greenish]

By my reading, you can take a five foot step as outlined in the feat. You cannot take that other five foot step earlier in the turn.Do I get retroactively teleported back 5 feet or what? :smalltongue:

[Undead Pebble]

Do I get retroactively teleported back 5 feet or what? :smalltongue:

Are you saying it is fine to take a 5ft step and then a move action? The rules say nothing about taking a move action if you have taken a 5ft step.

[Andezzar]

No, you are granted a 5 ft step by the feat, but you cannot use it because you would violate the limitations of the 5 ft step since you already moved before (with the nomal 5 ft step).

[Greenish]

Are you saying it is fine to take a 5ft step and then a move action? The rules say nothing about taking a move action if you have taken a 5ft step.Rules say aplenty about move actions and 5' steps. (And there are plenty of move actions you can make after 5' step. :smalltongue:)

The thing is, D&D has exception-based rules (according to the RC article). If a general rule says "you can't move", and a specific feat says "you can move", then you can move.


[Edit]: Well, whatever, you can interpret it however you wish. It's a horrible feat either way.

[Undead Pebble]

Rules say aplenty about move actions and 5' steps. (And there are plenty of move actions you can make after 5' step. :smalltongue:)

By move actions I meant moving, say, 20ft.

Give me a quote to support your statement please.

[Undead Pebble]

[Edit]: Well, whatever, you can interpret it however you wish. It's a horrible feat either way.

No you can't. Why is it so hard to admit that you were wrong?

[Andezzar]

The thing is, D&D has exception-based rules (according to the RC article). If a general rule says "you can't move", and a specific feat says "you can move", then you can move.
In this case the rules don't say "you can move" they say "you can perform this action with its own set of rules." These rules say the action does not work if you move.

[Fax Celestis]

Are you saying it is fine to take a 5ft step and then a move action? The rules say nothing about taking a move action if you have taken a 5ft step.

Different. If you 5's, you can't take a move action.

However, if you 5's, you still can take full-round actions. Net and Trident gives a specially defined full-round action, part of which is a free 5's.

[Darrin]

The 5ft step from the feat is fine, but you cannot make your usual 5ft step in the same round, since you are doing some form of movement in the same round.

But you haven't earned the 5' step from Net & Trident yet. And if the net misses, or you fail the Str check, you don't get that additional 5' step. When you take the first 5' step, it's legal to do so: you're not using a move action that round, and you haven't been granted any additional movement yet. When you do get the extra 5' step, it's an exception to the "only one 5' step" rule. Doing so doesn't make the original 5' step illegal.

[Andezzar]

Different. If you 5's, you can't take a move action.

However, if you 5's, you still can take full-round actions. Net and Trident gives a specially defined full-round action, part of which is a free 5's.A 5 ft step is not part of a Full Round Action. It is a separate non-action that can be performed before during or after the Full Round Action.
You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.



But you haven't earned the 5' step from Net & Trident yet. And if the net misses, or you fail the Str check, you don't get that additional 5' step. When you take the first 5' step, it's legal to do so: you're not using a move action that round, and you haven't been granted any additional movement yet. When you do get the extra 5' step, it's an exception to the "only one 5' step" rule. Doing so doesn't make the original 5' step illegal.There is no "only one 5 ft step rule". The rule for any 5 ft step however include:
You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement. So even if you get a 5 ft step through the feat you cannot use it because you have already moved at some other point in the round.

[Fax Celestis]

I posted it before but I'll post it again:


As a full-round action, you can make a combined attack with your net and trident. First, you throw your net; if you hit and successfully control your foe by winning the opposed Strength check, you may immediately take a 5-foot step toward your opponent and make a full attack with your trident.

Under your interpretation, mind you, I can't make a full attack. Why? Because I already used my full-round action to activate this ability.

[broodax]

You have touched on this already by noticing it, but you seem to have dismissed it out of hand.

The 5-ft step rule does actually look into the future. You cannot use a 5-ft step if you are going to move at all later in the same round. If you use a 5-ft step, then move later, you have broken the rules, and if someone in your group notices, you will likely be asked to re-do your actions for the whole round, or your DM will impose some penalty on you.

More likely, your DM will say, "You cannot use this feat this round. It contains movement, and you've already taken a 5-ft step."

This is the same as not being able to 5-ft step then Charge, or a 5-ft step then Run.

[limejuicepowder]

The 5-ft step rule does actually look into the future. You cannot use a 5-ft step if you are going to move at all later in the same round. If you use a 5-ft step, then move later, you have broken the rules, and if someone in your group notices, you will likely be asked to re-do your actions for the whole round, or your DM will impose some penalty on you.

More likely, your DM will say, "You cannot use this feat this round. It contains movement, and you've already taken a 5-ft step."

This is the same as not being able to 5-ft step then Charge, or a 5-ft step then Run.

So I guess this means a wizard is unable to take a 5-foot step, then cast dimension door, or teleport? He would, after all, be moving after taking a 5-foot step.

The general rules of what you are allowed to do are "broken" all the time, because they are broad rules that dictate what you can usually do. However, most abilities at their core are exceptions to the general rules, and allow you to take specific actions that are "against the rule." This is the entire basis of specific trumps general.

Net and Trident allows you to take a special type of full-round action which includes 5 feet of movement. The general rules say you can take a 5-foot step in the same round as a full-round action. Seems quite straight forward to me.

[evyldead]

all i needed to know was a good build xD.

[Gwendol]

Skirmish's requirement is 'moved 10' under your own volition within one round'. It doesn't care how you move, just that you're 10' away from where you started your turn.

That I agree with. Isn't there a feat that makes 5' steps into 10' ones too?

The net and trident attack is a full round action that happens to include a 5' step.

[Greenish]

That I agree with. Isn't there a feat that makes 5' steps into 10' ones too?Not a feat, but a sufficient Tumble check (OA) or Sparring Dummy of the Master (A&EG) can do it.

[Gwendol]

On movement and 5' steps: it can be noted that when grappling it is allowed to take a 5' step, initiate the grapple, then move into the same space as the target. That can even be more than 5' if your reach is long enough.

[Andezzar]

Not a feat, but a sufficient Tumble check (OA) or Sparring Dummy of the Master (A&EG) can do it.Both are 3.0 though.

[broodax]

So, on spells, I'd think this would be a near universal interpretation of the rules, but in case you car about semi official sources,
These spells instantly transport the subject from one place to another. This movement takes no time (but the action used to trigger the effect usually is at least a standard action). This movement also does not count against your movement for the turn; if you've used a teleport spell, you have not "moved" for purposes of taking a 5-foot step. However, some teleportation spells, such as dimension door, leave you unable to act after you've them. When you use a dimension door spell, you cannot take a 5-foot step or take any kind of action.

As for grappling, that is a fantastic counter example to the rule, and in fact it was also called out in the rules of the game,
Grapple: To maintain a hold you've established with a successful grapple check, you must enter your foe's space. Likewise, creatures with the improved grab special attack drag their victims into their spaces after establishing holds. Neither movement counts against a creature's movement for the turn. If you've already moved your speed or taken a 5-foot step, you still can move into a foe's space to maintain a hold and you still can be dragged into an attacker's space after it has grabbed you with improved grab.

Further, ROTG also says this
Several actions fit our definition of "movement" but are not move actions. Unless noted otherwise, you can't also take a 5-foot step during a turn when you use one of these actions. Here's a recap:
...
Take a 5-Foot Step: You're moving when you take a 5-foot step...

Not only does it call out the you need a specific exception to allow movement if you also 5-foot step (which the feat does not provide), it explicitly says that you can't 5-foot step if the rest of your turn also includes a 5-foot step.

[limejuicepowder]

So, on spells, I'd think this would be a near universal interpretation of the rules, but in case you car about semi official sources,

As for grappling, that is a fantastic counter example to the rule, and in fact it was also called out in the rules of the game,

Further, ROTG also says this

Not only does it call out the you need a specific exception to allow movement if you also 5-foot step (which the feat does not provide), it explicitly says that you can't 5-foot step if the rest of your turn also includes a 5-foot step.

Whelp, when you're right you're right; I'm convinced. As silly as I think it is, considering all that it's clear the feat doesn't allow for it. Not that it matters much, since skirmish pretty much stinks anyways.

So is there a way to take advantage of the net and trident feat?

[Baroknik]

Even if it's against the rules, is probably allow this use, it is far from overpowered even with this functionality.

[Gwendol]

So, on spells, I'd think this would be a near universal interpretation of the rules, but in case you car about semi official sources,

As for grappling, that is a fantastic counter example to the rule, and in fact it was also called out in the rules of the game,

Further, ROTG also says this

Not only does it call out the you need a specific exception to allow movement if you also 5-foot step (which the feat does not provide), it explicitly says that you can't 5-foot step if the rest of your turn also includes a 5-foot step.

But the movement allowed by the feat is part of a full round action, just as the movement to enter the space of your foe is part of the grappling initiation action. Your quote does nothing to disprove this, and furthermore, ROTG is not rules.

Here's the rules for 5' steps:

You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can’t take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round when you move any distance.

You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.

You can only take a 5-foot step if your movement isn’t hampered by difficult terrain or darkness. Any creature with a speed of 5 feet or less can’t take a 5-foot step, since moving even 5 feet requires a move action for such a slow creature.

And for grappling:

To maintain the grapple for later rounds, you must move into the target’s space. (This movement is free and doesn’t count as part of your movement in the round.)

It is free wrt your listed speed, but it still provokes AoO's from creature that threaten you. The reason for allowing 5' step and moving into the target space is that this movement is part of the attack action and not a move action (or a 5' step action). That's the reason for the net and trident feat working the same way: it does exactly what it says it does, and shouldn't be burdened with guesswork and homebrewed rules.

[Gwendol]

Even if it's against the rules, is probably allow this use, it is far from overpowered even with this functionality.

It certainly is not against the rules.

[Andezzar]

But the movement allowed by the feat is part of a full round action, just as the movement to enter the space of your foe is part of the grappling initiation action. While this 5 ft step is part of a Full Round Action, it is still a 5 ft step and thus follows all rules of a 5 ft step that are not explicitly overridden. The feat does not call for free movement that happens to cover a distance of 5 ft it calls for a 5 ft step. So the only rule overridden is that this 5 ft step is not a separate non-action.

The rules for a 5 ft step say that you cannot perform it if you perform any other movement during the same round. So any 5 ft step performed before the Full Round Action makes taking a 5 ft step during that action impossible.


It is free wrt your listed speed, but it still provokes AoO's from creature that threaten you. The reason for allowing 5' step and moving into the target space is that this movement is part of the attack action and not a move action (or a 5' step action). That's the reason for the net and trident feat working the same way: it does exactly what it says it does, and shouldn't be burdened with guesswork and homebrewed rules.Grappling does not give you a 5 ft step. It instructs you to move into the target's square with certain rules (free movement, no AoO from the character whose square you enter). This movement is not even limited to the distance of 5 ft. You also do that if your reach is longer.

[Baroknik]

Would there really even be a problem with allowing this feat to act as a standard action? Sure some inventive Cunning Surge guy with quick draw gets a ton of full attacks, but barring that, it's basically a super-mini pounce with a bunch of restrictions.

Note, I'm not saying that is RAW or RAI by any means, but will it blend?

[broodax]

And the important thing to note is that grappling is an exception to the rule. If you read the PHB as written, you cannot actually 5 ft. step and grapple in the same turn, it is only because of clarifications like the one in ROTG that it is clear that you can do it.

If you want to house rule that this feat is also an exception to the rule, you can do so, but by RAW, unless it specifically states that the movement in the feat does not count as movement for the purpose of determining if you can take a 5-ft step in the same round, it does count, and you cannot take a 5-ft step the same turn you Tri-net.

You are treating this as guesswork and homebrew when it is explicitly clear. The rule for 5-ft step is:

"Did you move yet this turn?" If yes, you cannot 5-ft step. If no, you can.

If you took a 5-ft step this turn, before you take any more actions, you have to ask "Does this action constitute movement?" If yes, you cannot do it. If no, you can.

There are specific exceptions to the rule, or discussions we can have about what constitutes movement. Is Dim-door movement? Is drawing a weapon movement? Is standing from prone movement? None of this is explicitly called out in the rules, so interpretation can vary.

But there is no way you can argue that by RAW, a 5-ft step is not movement. It doesn't matter what kind of action it is part of. The only question that matters is whether it is "any other kind of movement". I can see an argument for dim-door not being movement, and I can see an argument that by movement the rule means moving to a different square on the grid, not taking "Move Actions" that don't actually move your character anywhere.

Your argument that this 5-ft step is not "movement" seems to be that it is not movement because it is part of a full round attack. There are so many counterexamples to this (charge, withdraw, bull rush, etc), where attack, standard, or full round actions clearly do count as movement, that I'm not sure how you can maintain that.

As others have said, you could clearly make a house-rule to allow this (it's not like it would be overpowered), and there are already similar exceptions to RAW (grapple) that are widely excepted.

[Fax Celestis]

Would there really even be a problem with allowing this feat to act as a standard action? Sure some inventive Cunning Surge guy with quick draw gets a ton of full attacks, but barring that, it's basically a super-mini pounce with a bunch of restrictions.

Note, I'm not saying that is RAW or RAI by any means, but will it blend?

I'd allow it. Terrible prereqs (EWP and WF? Gross.) with conflicting stat dependencies (Dex for TWF and for the feat itself, Str to make Net and Trident's trip work), weird fighting style required, less chance of it working on larger (read: more dangerous) enemies...there are a lot of little drawbacks that really add up over time. I would not only allow it to be used as a standard action, but also explicitly call out that the 5' step granted by the feat doesn't count towards your standard limitation of 5' steps in this round (thereby circumventing this entire argument).

Yeah, it'd make scouts pretty cool, but frankly I don't really have a problem with that.

[limejuicepowder]

Would there really even be a problem with allowing this feat to act as a standard action? Sure some inventive Cunning Surge guy with quick draw gets a ton of full attacks, but barring that, it's basically a super-mini pounce with a bunch of restrictions.

Note, I'm not saying that is RAW or RAI by any means, but will it blend?

I would probably give it the go-ahead. The biggest limiter would be the net - it needs to be re-folded after each throw, so that means you'd need to have multiple nets and the quick draw feat. That's a lot of hoops to jump through.

Along this same vein, I've considered making full attacks a standard action anyways, so it would fit right in.

[Andezzar]

I would probably give it the go-ahead. The biggest limiter would be the net - it needs to be re-folded after each throw, so that means you'd need to have multiple nets and the quick draw feat. That's a lot of hoops to jump through.You do not need to fold the net after each throw:
A net must be folded to be thrown effectively. The first time you throw your net in a fight, you make a normal ranged touch attack roll. After the net is unfolded, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls with it. It takes 2 rounds for a proficient user to fold a net and twice that long for a nonproficient one to do so.Depending on the target and your AB a -4 on a touch attack may be negligible.

[Legendxp]

And the important thing to note is that grappling is an exception to the rule. If you read the PHB as written, you cannot actually 5 ft. step and grapple in the same turn, it is only because of clarifications like the one in ROTG that it is clear that you can do it.

If you want to house rule that this feat is also an exception to the rule, you can do so, but by RAW, unless it specifically states that the movement in the feat does not count as movement for the purpose of determining if you can take a 5-ft step in the same round, it does count, and you cannot take a 5-ft step the same turn you Tri-net.

You are treating this as guesswork and homebrew when it is explicitly clear. The rule for 5-ft step is:

"Did you move yet this turn?" If yes, you cannot 5-ft step. If no, you can.

If you took a 5-ft step this turn, before you take any more actions, you have to ask "Does this action constitute movement?" If yes, you cannot do it. If no, you can.

There are specific exceptions to the rule, or discussions we can have about what constitutes movement. Is Dim-door movement? Is drawing a weapon movement? Is standing from prone movement? None of this is explicitly called out in the rules, so interpretation can vary.

But there is no way you can argue that by RAW, a 5-ft step is not movement. It doesn't matter what kind of action it is part of. The only question that matters is whether it is "any other kind of movement". I can see an argument for dim-door not being movement, and I can see an argument that by movement the rule means moving to a different square on the grid, not taking "Move Actions" that don't actually move your character anywhere.

Your argument that this 5-ft step is not "movement" seems to be that it is not movement because it is part of a full round attack. There are so many counterexamples to this (charge, withdraw, bull rush, etc), where attack, standard, or full round actions clearly do count as movement, that I'm not sure how you can maintain that.

As others have said, you could clearly make a house-rule to allow this (it's not like it would be overpowered), and there are already similar exceptions to RAW (grapple) that are widely excepted.

I wouldn't argue that a 5ft step is not movement, rather, that you may take more than one 5ft step in a round if something explicitly tells you to because of a feat, spell, manuever, or otherwise. Remember the 5ft step rule is general, specific exceptions apply and can overrule the previous rule. For example,


Originally posted by Tome of Battle
PRESS THE ADVANTAGE
Your sense of the battlefield and intui-
tive understanding of the ebb and flow
of combat allow you to move without
dropping your defenses. While others
must slowly work through a melee, you
seize gaps in a foe’s defenses and move
with great speed and confi dence.
While you are in this stance, you can
take a second 5-foot step immediately
after you take one for the round. This
second movement does not provoke
attacks of opportunity. You can make a
single 5-foot step into difficult terrain,
but if you do, you cannot make the
second 5-foot step.

This would make this stance completely useless otherwise. If we still want to argue about 5ft steps, I suggest we move this to the dysfunctional rules thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304817) as we have derailed this thread significantly.

[Andezzar]

I wouldn't argue that a 5ft step is not movement, rather, that you may take more than one 5ft step in a round if something explicitly tells you to because of a feat, spell, manuever, or otherwise.I agree, but Net and Trident does not say that you get an additional 5 ft step.

Remember the 5ft step rule is general, specific exceptions apply and can overrule the previous rule.Yes, but such exception must be made. Press the Advantage does, Net and Trident does not.


This would make this stance completely useless otherwise. If we still want to argue about 5ft steps, I suggest we move this to the dysfunctional rules thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304817) as we have derailed this thread significantly.There is no dysfunction just a lack of explicit exception in Net and Trident. As I said before the feat still gives benefits without an extra 5 ft step: You get an extra attack and you do not suffer the TWF penalties for the net attack or the trident attacks. That is still better than many feats (and I'm not only talking about Skill Focus (Speak Languages)).

[Legendxp]

What if you looked at it this way:

Originally posted Sidestep Feat
Once per round, when you make an attack of opportunity, you may take a 5- foot step after you attack. This 5-foot step doesn't count against your limit of one 5-foot step per round or against any movement you take on your turn.

The stance doesn't have this stipulation. Unless the word "additional" is synonymous with the phrase "doesn't count against your limit of one 5-foot step per round", I don't believe this is the case.

EDIT: Here's another feat which does not have this stipulation.


Originally posted by Evasive Reflexes Feat
When an opponent gives you a chance to make an attack of opportunity, you can instead immediately take a 5-foot step.

[Gwendol]

The thing with net and trident is that the movement is conditional and not given at the start of the full round action. This is the same for movement in a grapple, for example.
The feat explains this particular full round action, and the benefit of the feat is that you may move toward your enemy after catching him in the net to spear him. Repeatedly. What actions you are allowed to take outside of this full round action are irrelevant.

[Andezzar]

The thing with net and trident is that the movement is conditional and not given at the start of the full round action. This is the same for movement in a grapple, for example. No, the feat does not give conditional movement, it gives a conditional action (the 5 ft step). This action must follow all its usual rules. One of the rules of the 5 ft step is that you cannot make it, if you use any other movement during the same round.

It is like charging when only allowed to take a standard or move action. You cannot ignore all the rules for charging either (straight line, no impeded movement, nearest square where you can attack the target etc.)


The feat explains this particular full round action, and the benefit of the feat is that you may move toward your enemy after catching him in the net to spear him. Repeatedly.The 5 ft step is not necessary to do what the feat allows: You can use the net from an adjacent square and thus not need the 5 ft step or an creature with more than 5 ft reach can use it, again not needing the 5 ft step for the melee attacks. You could even throw the trident. Nowhere does it say that the 5 ft step is an additional 5 ft step.

[Legendxp]

This seems to me that we now have two rules contradicting each other. Let's say you did take a 5ft step earlier in a round.

You now have:

A general rule preventing you from taking a 5ft step (You may not)
A specific feat allowing you to take a 5ft step (You may)

Now whenever something says you both can and cannot do something the can effect takes precedence. Also, the feat is specific while the 5ft step rule is general. I still don't understand why this would mean you can't take a 5ft step. :smallconfused: Is there anyway you might be able to further explain it to me? I can be a bit slow...

[Gwendol]

Well, specific trumps general, and in this specific case the rules for TWF aren't followed, and a 5' step may be taken as part of a full round action.

The feat description is quite detailed in what it does.

If you are adjacent to the enemy on your action I would recommend taking a 5' step away before initiating the maneuver.

(Or risk an AoO)

[Darrin]

Gentlepersons, I think we've reached the "It does whatever your DM says it does" point. I'm good with that.

(Actually, we probably passed that point a good ways back.)

[Legendxp]

Lol, :smallbiggrin: reminds me of this;

http://www.thelas.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/someone-on-the-internet-is-wrong.jpg

This will haunt me forever if I cannot find the answer to it.

[Andezzar]

This seems to me that we now have two rules contradicting each other. Let's say you did take a 5ft step earlier in a round.

You now have:

A general rule preventing you from taking a 5ft step (You may not)
A specific feat allowing you to take a 5ft step (You may)
"May take a 5 ft step" does not "mean may move 5 ft". It says "may perform the action of a 5 ft step". Performing this action has its own set of rules which include that the action cannot be performed if any other movement is performed in the same round. The action we are talking about is called "take a 5 ft step" in the SRD and on p. 144 of the PHB. So you are subject to the entirety of the rules of this action. Which means you cannot perform it if you perform any other movement in that round.

Secondly the feat does not mention that this 5 ft step may be an additional 5 ft step. Other abilities do.

Thirdly, if you perform the 5 ft step during the Full Round Action, you invalidate the 5 ft step you may have performed before the full round action. so either one cannot happen.


Well, specific trumps general, and in this specific case the rules for TWF aren't followed, and a 5' step may be taken as part of a full round action.There is no rule against performing a 5 ft step during a Full Round action, whether TWFing or not:
You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.
Neither the combat section (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#twoWeaponFighting) nor the feat section (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#twoWeaponFighting) provide differing rules for TWF.


The feat description is quite detailed in what it does. Yet you don't acknowledge that this 5 ft step is subject to the rules of every other 5 ft step.


If you are adjacent to the enemy on your action I would recommend taking a 5' step away before initiating the maneuver.

(Or risk an AoO)I never said this was a good action, just a possible one.

[Legendxp]

Now whenever something says you both can and cannot do something the can effect takes precedence.

I researched this to double check, found out I was incorrect. :smallfrown:

There's also this;


Originally Posted by Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. A monster’s statistics block supersedes the descriptive text.
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player’s Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for PC races, and the base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master’s Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player’s Handbook, you should assume the Player’s Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master’s Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

I realize that the player's handbook is the primary source, I'm still looking for the "specific trumps general" rule.

EDIT(1): I understand what you are saying. I'm starting to believe you are correct.
EDIT(2): Found it.


The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application:
General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic
guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when
applied to the same activity. For instance, a monster descrip-
tion is more specific than any general rule about monsters, so
the description takes precedence. An exception is a particular
kind of specific rule that contradicts or breaks another rule
(general or specific). The Improved Disarm feat, for instance,
provides an exception to the rule that an attacker provokes
an attack of opportunity from the defender he’s trying to
disarm (see Disarm, page 45).

I was under the impression that this was a specific or exception rules application. I'm still not completely sure so I'm trying to contact some of the other rule gurus on this site.

EDIT(3): What I've been getting from people so far is that, both of our interpretations are correct, and, that a DM may choose either one on a case by case basis. So I think Darrin wins this argument. :smallbiggrin:

[Vaz]

Can you not get around that fact by using either the Training Dummy of the Master, or getting a 40+ Tumble check?

[Andezzar]

I was under the impression that this was a specific or exception rules application. I'm still not completely sure so I'm trying to contact some of the other rule gurus on this site.The problem is that the exception must be explicit (as with the disarm feat) to be RAW. The Net and Trident feat says you may take a 5 ft step. It does not say that this 5 ft step can violate any of the rules for a 5 ft step. So there is no exception to the rule that a 5 ft step may not be performed if any other movement is performed during the same round.

"Take a 5 ft step" is not an instruction to move 5 ft but an instruction to perform a specific type of (non-)action.


Can you not get around that fact by using either the Training Dummy of the Master, or getting a 40+ Tumble check?The 40+ tumble from OA lets you get skirmish damage if you either perform the 10 ft step before or during the Full Round Action. The Sparring Dummy of the Master has not been updated to 3.5 so it may be subject to slight adjustments by the DM. Whether it still functions after those adjustments, depends on the individual DM.

I'm not well versed in 3.0 so I am not sure if a "5 ft adjustment" even is the equivalent of a 5 ft step.

[Legendxp]

Well it seems like a contradiction to me. You have the 5ft step rule saying you can't and the feat saying you can. :smallconfused:

[Andezzar]

Well it seems like a contradiction to me. You have the 5ft step rule saying you can't and the feat saying you can. :smallconfused:No there is no contradiction. It is similar to an item giving you an extra move action while being entangled (one of those where you cannot move at all). You would get the move action but you cannot use it for movement because you may not move.

The feat gives you the 5 ft step action, but this action cannot be performed if you perform any other movement in the same round.

[Gwendol]

But there is one, even if you don't see it. The feat describes a special full-round action which includes the option to move 5' towards your opponent. Whether this movement is part of the maneuver, or a regular 5' step taken between attacks is not specified. Since the maneuver granted by the feat can't be replicated without it (it breaks the general rules for TWF), and this also isn't specified in the text, I find it safe to state that the description of the feat is much like that of a spell: it does exactly what it says it does.

[broodax]

No, this is not a contradiction. The feat does not say "you may make a 5 foot step even if you would not otherwise be allowed to do so and this 5 foot step does not count as movement for the purpose of determining whether you can take another 5 foot step". It just says "you may make a 5 foot step".

If something is preventing you from doing that, that isn't a contradiction, it's just more information.

Can you take a 5 foot step using this feet if your movement is hampered? No, because you can never take a 5 foot step if your movement is hampered.

Can you take a 5 foot step using this feat if you have already moved during the round? No, because you can never take a 5 foot step if you have already moved during the round.

Can you take a 5 foot step and then use this feat to move as well? No, because you can never move during a round after taking a 5 foot step during the round.

To clarify, the question is not whether you can take a 5 foot step during the action, that is exactly what the feet allows. The question is can you also take another 5 foot step during a round when you use this feat to move.

We are not saying you can't use this feat to move. We're saying that you still need to follow the rules of a normal 5 foot step if you try to take a normal 5 foot step - and those rules say you can't take a normal 5 foot step if you move during the round. The only relevant question is "does the 5 feet moved during the use of this feat count as movement?" I have not seen any cogent argument for an answer of no.


it does exactly what it says it does.

Yes, exactly. And it does NOT say that it changes the normal rules of a 5 foot step, or that the 5 foot step during the special full round action doesn't count as movement.

[Legendxp]

No there is no contradiction. It is similar to an item giving you an extra move action while being entangled (one of those where you cannot move at all). You would get the move action but you cannot use it for movement because you may not move.

The feat gives you the 5 ft step action (and another rule negates it, how is this not a contradiction?), but this action cannot be performed if you perform any other movement in the same round.


No, this is not a contradiction. The feat does not say "you may make a 5 foot step even if you would not otherwise be allowed to do so and this 5 foot step does not count as movement for the purpose of determining whether you can take another 5 foot step". (No feat or spell has ever stated what you just quoted, you are tacking on rules and forgetting about exception rules) It just says "you may make a 5 foot step". (Which another rule says you may not, again, a contradiction)

If something is preventing you from doing that, that isn't a contradiction, it's just more information.

Can you take a 5 foot step using this feet if your movement is hampered? No, because you can never take a 5 foot step if your movement is hampered.
(There are cases where you can indeed make a 5ft step when your movement is hampered)

Can you take a 5 foot step using this feat if you have already moved during the round? No, because you can never take a 5 foot step if you have already moved during the round.
(Again there are cases where you can)

Can you take a 5 foot step and then use this feat to move as well? No, because you can never move during a round after taking a 5 foot step during the round.

To clarify, the question is not whether you can take a 5 foot step during the action, that is exactly what the feet allows. The question is can you also take another 5 foot step during a round when you use this feat to move. (This wasn't what I was arguing, I didn't mean to mislead anybody)

We are not saying you can't use this feat to move. We're saying that you still need to follow the rules of a normal 5 foot step if you try to take a normal 5 foot step (Except as above, see exception rules, where something else tells you to take a 5ft step, such as a feat) - and those rules say you can't take a normal 5 foot step if you move during the round. The only relevant question is "does the 5 feet moved during the use of this feat count as movement?" I have not seen any cogent argument for an answer of no. (I also believe this counts as movement, what I'm arguing is whether or not the rules in the PHB contradict what a feat is allowing you to do)



Yes, exactly. And it does NOT say that it changes the normal rules of a 5 foot step, or that the 5 foot step during the special full round action doesn't count as movement.

I have put my comments in bold.

EDIT: I'd like to stress that I'm not trying to offend anybody. However, I will most likely not change my stance until I know for sure that there isn't a contradiction somewhere.

[Andezzar]

(and another rule negates it, how is this not a contradiction?)There are two levels to that. One grants an action, the other tells us under which rules this action can be performed. It's like being able to drive and being allowed to.


(No feat or spell has ever stated what you just quoted, you are tacking on rules and forgetting about exception rules)Of course not, that is just what would be required for the feat to work as you want it to work.

(There are cases where you can indeed make a 5ft step when your movement is hampered)Only if your movement speed still is at least 10 ft., but yes that was a bad example.

(Again there are cases where you can)Only by explicit exception.

(This wasn't what I was arguing, I didn't mean to mislead anybody)But that is the heart of the problem. If the 5 ft step within the Full Round Action is the first 5 ft step in that round performed by the user of the feat, he can most certainly move. Only another 5 ft step causes problems.

[broodax]

Woodland Stride (Ex)
Starting at 2nd level, a druid may move through any sort of undergrowth (such as natural thorns, briars, overgrown areas, and similar terrain) at her normal speed and without taking damage or suffering any other impairment.


Dying
A dying character is unconscious and near death. She has -1 to -9 current hit points. A dying character can take no actions and is unconscious. At the end of each round (starting with the round in which the character dropped below 0 hit points), the character rolls d% to see whether she becomes stable. She has a 10% chance to become stable. If she does not, she loses 1 hit point. If a dying character reaches -10 hit points, she is dead.

According to the argument you are making, this is a contradiction in the rules for any Druid who happens to be dying while in an area of thorns. She can take no actions, but she can also move her normal speed! Contradiction!

Rules very often state that they are exceptions to other rules, or that they allow additional uses of abilities, etc. This one does not. It gives you the ability to do something (attack and move during it). It does not change the rules of 5-foot steps, or any other rules.

By your logic, by gaining this feat you can use the ability it grants without consulting the rules of actions at all. Can I use this feat if I've already taken a full round action? Of course, it says I can do stuff, I must be able to do it no matter what I've already done. Can I use this if I'm stunned, of course, it says I can do it and it doesn't matter what conditions affect me.

No, that is silly. You still follow all the rules when using this ability, and it isn't a contradiction, you're just not able to use this ability some of the time because of the rules (namely, the one that says you can't take a 5-ft step and move by other means in the same round).

[Legendxp]

@Others - Okay, I think I get it now. Broodax's explanation really helped. Sorry it took so long to get through to me. I'm unfortunately going to have to concede this argument. I was so hoping to be able to use this too... :smallfrown: In other news, that was fun. Any other interesting things to talk about?

[limejuicepowder]

@Others - Okay, I think I get it now. Broodax's explanation really helped. Sorry it took so long to get through to me. I'm unfortunately going to have to concede this argument. I was so hoping to be able to use this too... :smallfrown: In other news, that was fun. Any other interesting things to talk about?

Yup, example number 42,252 why mundanes don't get nice things. Casters unarguably get to break the rules casually and often; mundanes jump through 5 hoops just to get told at the end that it doesn't really work.

[Gwendol]

And yet, why is the exception only to be given to the 5' step rule breakage wrt explicitly detailing rules breakage/exceptions? That is not really such a big deal compared with the combined net and trident attack that ignores the rules for TWF, without specifying anything.

Broodax: your argument has no bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand. First off, there is no contradiction: dying is a Condition, and conditions in this game tend to limit or even remove actions available to the character.
Second:
It does not change the rules of 5-foot steps, or any other rules.
What do you mean by this? Feats typically grant characters a different, specific, option not covered by the general rule. This exception is usually detailed under the "normal" header.
Feats don't change the rules, they provide exceptions.

In this case, the feat details the benefits of taking the feat: they include attacking with the net, and on the condition that the STR check is won, moving towards the opponent and full attacking with the trident.
It is possible to emulate the benefits of the feat by using the usual rules for TWF, but the penalties will be horrendous (neither net nor trident are light weapons). And when attacking using the feat you take no penalties at all.

So, in this case the 5' step movement is but one exception to the normal rules provided by the feat. Or do you claim the feat provides no benefit at all? The exceptions to the TWF rules aren't specified either.

[ben-zayb]

Going by that rule, Shifting Defense would immensely suck and awkwardly worded. To "...can make an immediate 5-ft. step each time an opponent attacks you..." sounds off when meant as "may make your 1/round 5-ft. step at any time an opponent attacks you."

[Gwendol]

Not to mention evasive reflexes:
Benefit
When an opponent gives you a chance to make an attack of opportunity, you can instead immediately take a 5-foot step.

When according that rule you really can't if you have moved at all that round (or the next? Who knows, right!).

[broodax]

Gwendol, I think here is the confusion. I think that by very strict RAW, you should not be able to take a 5-ft step of any kind if you have already moved. But, I agree that the feat specifically telling you you can take a 5-ft step is possibly, and even likely, meant to allow you to do so. The same goes for Evasive Reflexes - they almost certainly mean that for you to be able to take the 5-ft step if you have already moved.

But, the 5-ft step that is allowed by the feat is not what I am arguing against. Here are two situations to illustrate what I mean.

1a: You have somehow been given the ability to both move and make a full round action in the same turn.
1b: You move with a move action.
1c: You execute a Tri-net.
1d: As part of your Tri-net, you take the 5-ft step allowed by the feat.

Here, a 5-ft step is kind of weird, because you have already moved. The feat specifically says you can, though, so I would agree with you that it's certainly RAI, and possibly RAW, that you can do it. Similarly, if you have already moved and Evasive Reflexes gives you a 5-foot step, this 5-foot step specifically allowed by the feat is certainly RAI, possibly RAW.

2a: You use a full round action to Tri-net.
2b: As part of your Tri-net, you take the 5-ft step allowed by the feat.
2c: After completing your Tri-net, you attempt to take a "vanilla" 5-ft step.

Here, a and b are obviously fine. But c I think is 100% not allowed by RAW. You have already moved in the round, so you cannot take a 5-ft step. This is a totally vanilla 5-ft step that you're attempting, it is not affected by the feat in any way, because the feat did not list any exceptions to the rules for 5-ft steps.

Note that I put the attempted 5-ft step after the full attack here instead of before, which we'd been discussing. I think this eliminates some confusion because the rules for 5-ft steps don't care if you attempt a 5-ft step before or after other movement, the rule is able to as easily check your future actions as your past ones. If you attempt to do c first, then a and b, this is no different according to the 5-ft step rules.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Gwendol, I think here is the confusion. I think that by very strict RAW, you should not be able to take a 5-ft step of any kind if you have already moved. But, I agree that the feat specifically telling you you can take a 5-ft step is possibly, and even likely, meant to allow you to do so. The same goes for Evasive Reflexes - they almost certainly mean that for you to be able to take the 5-ft step if you have already moved.

But, the 5-ft step that is allowed by the feat is not what I am arguing against. Here are two situations to illustrate what I mean.

1a: You have somehow been given the ability to both move and make a full round action in the same turn.
1b: You move with a move action.
1c: You execute a Tri-net.
1d: As part of your Tri-net, you take the 5-ft step allowed by the feat.

Here, a 5-ft step is kind of weird, because you have already moved. The feat specifically says you can, though, so I would agree with you that it's certainly RAI, and possibly RAW, that you can do it. Similarly, if you have already moved and Evasive Reflexes gives you a 5-foot step, this 5-foot step specifically allowed by the feat is certainly RAI, possibly RAW.

2a: You use a full round action to Tri-net.
2b: As part of your Tri-net, you take the 5-ft step allowed by the feat.
2c: After completing your Tri-net, you attempt to take a "vanilla" 5-ft step.

Here, a and b are obviously fine. But c I think is 100% not allowed by RAW. You have already moved in the round, so you cannot take a 5-ft step. This is a totally vanilla 5-ft step that you're attempting, it is not affected by the feat in any way, because the feat did not list any exceptions to the rules for 5-ft steps.

Note that I put the attempted 5-ft step after the full attack here instead of before, which we'd been discussing. I think this eliminates some confusion because the rules for 5-ft steps don't care if you attempt a 5-ft step before or after other movement, the rule is able to as easily check your future actions as your past ones. If you attempt to do c first, then a and b, this is no different according to the 5-ft step rules.

I don't remember the specific ruling but I thought if you can get movement that is not a move action like a psi wars hustle ability you could still take a 5fter?

I don't know the raw answer to this any more my original thoughts where that you could. But at my table apparently we have been using 5ft steps wrong.

I would like to also note that there would be no reason for this feet to mention being able to take a 5ft step after the net throw, seeing as you could do that any way.

You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.
So with out the feet I could throw the net, then 5ft step regardless of if it hit, then make the rest of my attacks with a trident.

[Gwendol]

Note that I put the attempted 5-ft step after the full attack here instead of before, which we'd been discussing. I think this eliminates some confusion because the rules for 5-ft steps don't care if you attempt a 5-ft step before or after other movement, the rule is able to as easily check your future actions as your past ones. If you attempt to do c first, then a and b, this is no different according to the 5-ft step rules.

An exception is an exception, full stop. And you haven't touched the elephant in the room; that you dual wield with no penalties using non-light weapons. You can't pick and choose which rules you accept exceptions to without clarifying text.

[broodax]

I don't know what you mean. There are no exceptions to the 5-ft step rules anywhere in the feat's text.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I don't know what you mean. There are no exceptions to the 5-ft step rules anywhere in the feat's text.

I believe he means that the feat itself is the exception.

[Gwendol]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough: the feat provides the character with extraordinary abilities which break the general rules.

[broodax]

I believe he means that the feat itself is the exception.

But appears to be missing that no one is arguing that you cannot use the feat. We are saying that when you then try to take an entirely normal 5-ft step, which has nothing to do with the feat, you still need to follow the rules.

[Gwendol]

First, that isn't the reason for the argument: that is that you can 5' step, initiate tri-net (and within the actions given by the feat take a 5' step) and thus trigger skirmish damage.
Second, I'm arguing that an exception is an exception. I certainly see your argument and the reasons for it, but as the feat currently stands it is mechanically not different to allow a 5' step before the attacks compared with after.

[RagnaroksChosen]

But appears to be missing that no one is arguing that you cannot use the feat. We are saying that when you then try to take an entirely normal 5-ft step, which has nothing to do with the feat, you still need to follow the rules.

I think the point being is why does the feat mention the fact that you may make an immediate 5ft step and then full attack with your trident. why not just say you may make a net attack and then full attack with your trident as per the 5ft rules you could make a 5 ft step between the attacks anyway?

My argument which I am sure is invalid, would be that even if you had made a 5ft step before, a 5 ft step is not movement it is a 5ft step. Plus if it was RAW per the explanation(s) mentioned it would break other feats/abilities like Evasive reflexes, Stalking shadow (counter), Shifting Defense(stance), Pursue, Orien battle Stride, and cunning evasion.

[Deox]

I almost feel bad about this thread's direction...

...almost.

[Andezzar]

An exception is an exception, full stop. And you haven't touched the elephant in the room; that you dual wield with no penalties using non-light weapons. You can't pick and choose which rules you accept exceptions to without clarifying text.There is no elephant in the room:
First you make an attack with the net (no dual-wielding here), then you succeed at the strength check, and then
make a full attack with your trident.You can only incur TWF penalties if you dual-wield. You can only do that on a Full Attack. The Full Attack you get from the feat explicitly only lets you use the trident. Having another weapon in the other hand is irrelevant.

[Gwendol]

There is no elephant in the room:
First you make an attack with the net (no dual-wielding here), then you succeed at the strength check, and thenYou can only incur TWF penalties if you dual-wield. You can only do that on a Full Attack. The Full Attack you get from the feat explicitly only lets you use the trident. Having another weapon in the other hand is irrelevant.

And the attack with the net is what then? Whistling in the wind?

[broodax]

I think the point being is why does the feat mention the fact that you may make an immediate 5ft step and then full attack with your trident. why not just say you may make a net attack and then full attack with your trident as per the 5ft rules you could make a 5 ft step between the attacks anyway?

My argument which I am sure is invalid, would be that even if you had made a 5ft step before, a 5 ft step is not movement it is a 5ft step. Plus if it was RAW per the explanation(s) mentioned it would break other feats/abilities like Evasive reflexes, Stalking shadow (counter), Shifting Defense(stance), Pursue, Orien battle Stride, and cunning evasion.

You can't normally make an attack, take a 5-ft step, then make another whole full attack. That's what the feat lets you do. I don't disagree that it might have been intended to let you take an additional 5-ft step, or that it isn't too powerful. The feat just doesn't let you do what's been suggested as written.

Also, a 5-ft step is movement, very specifically. If it were not, you could take an infinite number of 5-ft steps in a round. The rule for a 5-ft step does not check if you have taken a move action, it just checks if you have moved (and then leaves that open for interpretation as discussed: is Dim-door moving, is grappling into someone moving, etc).

The fact that those other feats are also badly written doesn't change the fact that this one also sucks.

The RAW is so clear it's funny we're even discussing it. If you want to make a 5-ft step, you ask "have I moved, or am I going to move in this round?" If you have moved, or are going to move, you can't take a 5-ft step. Yes, this means you need a house rule to allow 5-ft steps before or after grappling, and it means you need to define what "move" means.


And the attack with the net is what then? Whistling in the wind?

The TWF rules are super unclear. "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way."

What does "fight this way" mean? Do you get a penalty if you are wielding a weapon in both hands even if you only attack with one of them? What is a "primary hand"? Etc.

I presume that most people would interpret "fight this way" to mean "when you actually make the specific extra attack allowed by this rule with one weapon, and your normal attack(s) with your other weapon". Since you're not doing that when Tri-Netting, you are instead using the special attack allowed by the feat, you don't suffer TWFing penalties either - but this is all totally interpretation.

[Andezzar]

And the attack with the net is what then? Whistling in the wind?The attack with the net is not part of the later Full Attack, thus you are only attacking with the net and don't incur TWF penalties.

[Gwendol]

I don't think you have the TWF rules clear. A TWF attack is a full round action, during which you tack on an off-hand attack to your full attack routine.
Tri-net is a full round action during which you tack on a net attack, and may take a 5' step, tacked on your full attack routine with the trident.

Furthermore there is this:

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.

In this case you are fighting with two weapons (you need to hold on to the rope in order to initiate and win the STR check).

[broodax]

It seems like you are just agreeing that this is a horribly worded feat and it is guesswork as to what it's actually intended to do*.

Bonus: Right above the text you just quoted in the SRD is this bit:


"A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can’t be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.

I know that this is not conclusive (I think the 5-foot step rules are pretty conclusive by themselves), but it's just more fuel for the fire - it's only if your full round action used in a turn doesn't involve moving any distance that you can take a normal 5-foot step.

*My guess: it's meant to give you an extra, "free" net attack when you full attack with a trident, without any TWF penalties.

[Legendxp]

But, the 5-ft step that is allowed by the feat is not what I am arguing against. Here are two situations to illustrate what I mean.

1a: You have somehow been given the ability to both move and make a full round action in the same turn.
1b: You move with a move action.
1c: You execute a Tri-net.
1d: As part of your Tri-net, you take the 5-ft step allowed by the feat.

Here, a 5-ft step is kind of weird, because you have already moved. The feat specifically says you can, though, so I would agree with you that it's certainly RAI, and possibly RAW, that you can do it. Similarly, if you have already moved and Evasive Reflexes gives you a 5-foot step, this 5-foot step specifically allowed by the feat is certainly RAI, possibly RAW.

2a: You use a full round action to Tri-net.
2b: As part of your Tri-net, you take the 5-ft step allowed by the feat.
2c: After completing your Tri-net, you attempt to take a "vanilla" 5-ft step.

I completely agree with Broomax on thinking that 2c does not work. This seems rather obvious. I was arguing for 1d which at the time I thought worked, and then I thought it didn't work. (Now I think it does actually work.) This is all so confusing. :smalleek: Except for 2c, that obviously doesn't work.


...that you dual wield with no penalties using non-light weapons.

Gwendol, normally I'd agree with you, except that I'm not seeing anywhere that you ignore the penalties for two-weapon fighting. Can you clarify this?

As for if you are actually TWF, I think this is pretty clear that you are. Not to mention you actually need TWF in order to gain access to the feat. So at the very least this supports Gwendol's argument RAI that a person using this feat is TWF.


The RAW is so clear it's funny we're even discussing it.

Well, it must not be THAT clear if five people are discussing it. :smallannoyed:

[broodax]

Wait, the feat requires TWF as a prereq? So... really, because, I think, the rules never tell you which attack you need to take first if you are full-attacking or TWFing, the feat as written actually does nothing.

You can already do everything that the feat allows you to do just by TWFing with a net in your "off-hand" and a trident in your main hand.

Pathfinder appears to have realized this and makes it treat the net as a light weapon for TWFing (otherwise it's a one-handed weapon) and also gives you a bonus to attack entangled opponents. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/net-and-trident-combat

[Legendxp]

...the feat as written actually does nothing.

I don't follow? Could you explain this again?

[Andezzar]

I don't think you have the TWF rules clear. A TWF attack is a full round action, during which you tack on an off-hand attack to your full attack routine.No, TWFing is an option you can take, if you are using the Full Attack action. Furthermore the Feat does not specify which weapon is in the off-hand.


Tri-net is a full round action during which you tack on a net attack, and may take a 5' step, tacked on your full attack routine with the trident.Exactly, you add an attack, you do not add the attack to the Full Attack Action, which comes later.
Would you incur TWF penalties on an AoO if intended to later attack with both weapons? Would you if the AoO came after the Full Attack with two weapons?


Furthermore there is this:
[SRD Quote]

In this case you are fighting with two weapons (you need to hold on to the rope in order to initiate and win the STR check).While not really wrong, interpreting it like that would have huge implications namely that you get your extra attacks on any Full round Action, not just the Full Attack Action.

Lastly, Rules Compendium to the rescue:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack with that weapon when you make a full attack. Fighting in this way is very hard, however, and you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand.

So obviously whatever you do during the usage of the Net and Trident Feat is not two-weapon fighting.


Wait, the feat requires TWF as a prereq? So... Really, so... You need to have mobility and a couple of other feats to attack everyone whith your reach. Prerequisites do not necessarily have anything to do with whatever the feat grants.


the rules never tell you which attack you need to take first if you are full-attacking or TWFing, the feat as written actually does nothing.They explicitly tell you that you can use either.


You can already do everything that the feat allows you to do just by TWFing with a net in your "off-hand" and a trident in your main hand.No you can't. Without the feat you cannot do similar unless you a) use TWF (so -4 to all attacks) or b) have a BAB of at least 6 (-5/-10/-15 to the trident attacks). With a flaw you could get the Net and Trident Feat at level 1.

[broodax]

Say I don't have this feat. I am TWFing with a trident and net. I can TWF with thrown weapons, the net is a light throwing weapon. I can make my off-hand attack first (at least there is no rule about what order TWF attacks must come in that I can find). I can take a 5-foot step during a full attack.

I will have bad TWF penalties because the net is not a light weapon. The strength check appears to be no action at all.

So, you can do everything this feat allows you to do just by having the prerequisites.

The feat, as Gwendol has pointed out, does nothing to help with TWFing penalties, and as I have pointed out, does not change any of the rules for 5-foot steps.

Now, I think that the feat is intended to remove those TWFing penalties (and the Pathfinder designers appear to have interpreted/copied it similarly, not removing the penalties entirely, but allowing the net to be considered a light weapon), but it takes some actual interpretation of the TWF rules (what does "fight this way" mean) to make that case.

[Fax Celestis]

There is no elephant in the room:
First you make an attack with the net (no dual-wielding here), then you succeed at the strength check, and thenYou can only incur TWF penalties if you dual-wield. You can only do that on a Full Attack. The Full Attack you get from the feat explicitly only lets you use the trident. Having another weapon in the other hand is irrelevant.

Incorrect: you have gained additional attacks (full attack with trident, plus a ranged touch with the net [probably at your full BAB but not explicitly stated as such]) in the round for fighting with two weapons. Therefore, you suffer the penalties described under the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack.

The feat doesn't explicitly list that you don't get those: are you also stating that you take the TWF penalties?

[Legendxp]

Originally Posted by RC p. 148
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack with that weapon when you make a full attack. Fighting in this way is very hard, however, and you suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand.

Ahh, this makes sense (Thanks Andezzar). See below;


Originally posted by Net and Trident
As a full-round action, you can make a combined attack with your net and trident. First, you throw your net; if you hit and successfully control your foe by winning the opposed Strength check, you may immediately take a 5-foot step toward your opponent and make a full attack with your trident.

See, you are making the full attack after your hit with the net. So I guess you wouldn't be two-weapon fighting, and thus no TWF penalties.

Double-Edit: Removed Original edit, adding as new post...

[RagnaroksChosen]

You can't normally make an attack, take a 5-ft step, then make another whole full attack. That's what the feat lets you do. I don't disagree that it might have been intended to let you take an additional 5-ft step, or that it isn't too powerful. The feat just doesn't let you do what's been suggested as written.

No but if you have a bab of +6/+1 or higher you could make your first attack, then 5ft step then finish your attack routine. That's all I was getting at.



Also, a 5-ft step is movement, very specifically. If it were not, you could take an infinite number of 5-ft steps in a round. The rule for a 5-ft step does not check if you have taken a move action, it just checks if you have moved (and then leaves that open for interpretation as discussed: is Dim-door moving, is grappling into someone moving, etc).

No you couldn't take infinite 5ft steps in a round, simply because of the other rule of "You can’t take more than one 5-foot step in a round". So even if a 5ft step didn't count (which I personally don't believe it does) you still could not do an infinite amount of them.

As for Dim-door my action is to cast a spell not move.



The fact that those other feats are also badly written doesn't change the fact that this one also sucks.

I would agree with you if it where isolated to one book but the fact that those span multiple books.



The RAW is so clear it's funny we're even discussing it. If you want to make a 5-ft step, you ask "have I moved, or am I going to move in this round?" If you have moved, or are going to move, you can't take a 5-ft step. Yes, this means you need a house rule to allow 5-ft steps before or after grappling, and it means you need to define what "move" means.

again personally I always interpreted that the line "you can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round when you move any distance" was referring to the Move action that is defined under move action's. At that point though we would be arguing if we are using the English word move or the word defined by the game.



The TWF rules are super unclear. "If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way."

What does "fight this way" mean? Do you get a penalty if you are wielding a weapon in both hands even if you only attack with one of them? What is a "primary hand"? Etc.

I believe it is meant to distinguish between holding two weapons and making alternating attacks with your weapons, or getting the extra off hand attack. You can wield two weapons and if your bab is high enough alternate the weapons used in each attack.

Which is kinda like what I was saying above where you can wield a net and trident and make a net attack with your first attack then a trident attack with any others, assuming your BAB is high enough.

[Fax Celestis]

This is one of those instances when RC made issues worse, because there are plenty of ways to TWF without making a full-attack (such as, for instance, the Double Hit feat, Two-Weapon Pounce, Two-Weapon Rend, Tiger Claw maneuvers...).

The original SRD quote reads as follows:


If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:


If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
Table: Two-Weapon Fighting Penalties summarizes the interaction of all these factors.

[Legendxp]

I believe the "fighting in this way" refers to the fact that you get an extra attack. Since you wouldn't get one during your full attack I don't think you'd be "fighting in this way".

To support my arguement, look at someone wielding a shield and sword. They don't get TWF penalties unless they try to use the shield as a weapon, then they get the penalties. It seems the penalties only apply when certain conditions are met. I think one of these conditions is receiving an extra attack during a full attack (Something that doesn't happen in the feat).

[broodax]

again personally I always interpreted that the line "you can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round when you move any distance" was referring to the Move action that is defined under move action's. At that point though we would be arguing if we are using the English word move or the word defined by the game.


We are clearly not using a word defined by the game, because they never define "move". It explicitly does not mean "move action" because you can actually take move actions after a 5-ft step (of course this is pointed out in the Full-Attack section of the rules...)


If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.

You just can't "move any distance", like, say, 5 feet.

[Fax Celestis]

I believe the "fighting in this way" refers to the fact that you get an extra attack. Since you wouldn't get one during your full attack I don't think you'd be "fighting in this way".

Reread my quote please.

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a -6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a -10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:

[broodax]

The interpretation being argued for is that you are not, in fact, getting one extra attack per round because of "fighting this way", you are getting an extra attack because of the description of Net and Trident, so you do not get the penalties associated with "fighting this way".

I think this is almost certainly what they intended, but I think it's at best unclear and at worst entirely unsupported by the text.

[RagnaroksChosen]

We are clearly not using a word defined by the game, because they never define "move". It explicitly does not mean "move action" because you can actually take move actions after a 5-ft step (of course this is pointed out in the Full-Attack section of the rules...)


Move (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#move)
Um... They do define move, It is a type of Move action.

[Legendxp]

I was referring to this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16626050&postcount=98).

[Andezzar]

This is one of those instances when RC made issues worse, because there are plenty of ways to TWF without making a full-attack (such as, for instance, the Double Hit feat, Two-Weapon Pounce, Two-Weapon Rend, Tiger Claw maneuvers...).There are many ways to attack with more than one weapon. Not all of them are Two-Weapon Fighting.
Double Hit explicitly gives you the penalties of TWF, which strongly implies that what you do is not TWF.
Two-Weapon Pounce gives no penalties (but removes a bonus) and thus you are not TWFing. Despite its name you do not get a full attack you only get one attack with each weapon.
Two-Weapon Rend: Nothing prevents you from getting the bonus on alternating (i.e not TWFing) attacks. All you need to do is hit with both weapons
I'm too lazy to look up all the tiger claw maneuvers.

[Fax Celestis]

Two-Weapon Pounce gives no penalties (but removes a bonus) and thus you are not TWFing. Despite its name you do not get a full attack you only get one attack with each weapon.

Irrelevant. Did you receive an extra attack with a different manufactured weapon than your primary weapon this round? If yes, you are TWFing.

[Andezzar]

Irrelevant. Did you receive an extra attack with a different manufactured weapon than your primary weapon this round? If yes, you are TWFing.No, you are not as per the RC.

[Legendxp]

So the current arguments going on are (If I'm incorrect please let me know);

1). A 5ft step does not count as movement?
2). The Net and Trident feat (Hereby referred to as NAT) isn't two-weapon fighting?
3). You may take a 5ft step and then use the feat NAT to take another?
4). You may use the feat NAT to take a 5ft step and then take your "first" 5ft step later in the round?
5). The feat NAT doesn't actually do anything?

Did I miss anything? Well, here are my opinions;

1). I would argue that it does indeed count as movement.
2). I would argue that it isn't TWF.
3). I would argue that you could.
4). I would argue that you couldn't.
5). If all of these are proved wrong then yes, the feat doesn't actually do anything. However, why would they print it? I think this helps my case at the very least RAI if not RAW.

As for Andezzar,


I'm too lazy to look up all the tiger claw maneuvers.


You're not allowed to be lazy during an internet discussion! Lol, I'm too lazy as well.

I'm glad we're still discussing this, :smallbiggrin: I was beginning to think the conversation was over.

EDIT:


If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round

Just because you can get an extra attack from another weapon doesn't mean that all extra attacks from other weapons are TWF. I'm almost certain that there are other feats/spells/manuevers/powers that do this. I'll try to find one.

[Gwendol]

Irrelevant. Did you receive an extra attack with a different manufactured weapon than your primary weapon this round? If yes, you are TWFing.

QFT.

Furthermore, regardless of the extra attack you still have to deal with the off-hand penalty.

[Legendxp]

So I googled QFT, what the heck is a Quadratic Frobenius Test? :smalltongue:

[broodax]

So the current arguments going on are (If I'm incorrect please let me know);

1). A 5ft step does not count as movement?
2). The Net and Trident feat (Hereby referred to as NAT) isn't two-weapon fighting?
3). You may take a 5ft step and then use the feat NAT to take another?
4). You may use the feat NAT to take a 5ft step and then take your "first" 5ft step later in the round?
5). The feat NAT doesn't actually do anything?

Did I miss anything? Well, here are my opinions;

1). I would argue that it does indeed count as movement.
2). I would argue that it isn't TWF.
3). I would argue that you could.
4). I would argue that you couldn't.
5). If all of these are proved wrong then yes, the feat doesn't actually do anything. However, why would they print it? I think this helps my case at the very least RAI if not RAW.


Good summary. Your answers to 3 and 4 aren't consistent though. 5-foot steps don't care if movement comes before or after, either NAT is movement or it isn't.

[Fax Celestis]

So I googled QFT, what the heck is a Quadratic Frobenius Test? :smalltongue:
Quoted For Truth.

No, you are not as per the RC.

RC's TWF section is a terrible rewrite of perfectly functional rules that only muddied the water instead of doing its intended purposes of making things easier to handle.

[Legendxp]

Good summary. Your answers to 3 and 4 aren't consistent though. 5-foot steps don't care if movement comes before or after, either NAT is movement or it isn't.

The reason for this is: One, I believe that it is movement. This means you can't take more than one 5ft step. Two, I believe that a 5ft step from a feat can break general rules as an exception based rule.

1). If you use the feat first, you have used your "one and only 5ft step". You cannot now use the general rules to apply another 5ft step.

2). However, if you use your "one and only 5ft step" first, then you may use the feat to break the general rule regarding the restriction of a 5ft step when a player has moved during a round.

That's how I see it anyway. I was convinced otherwise, but then later "unconvinced" otherwise. Does anybody agree with me here or am I by myself?

[broodax]

I think you're just clearly wrong (sorry). If the use of NAT is "movement", then you cannot use a 5-foot step before it or after it.

Just like you can't 5-foot step before or after a charge, or before or after a run, etc.

[Andezzar]

Furthermore, regardless of the extra attack you still have to deal with the off-hand penalty.What Off-hand penalty? If you are not using TWF, there is no off-hand penalty. That was 3.0


RC's TWF section is a terrible rewrite of perfectly functional rules that only muddied the water instead of doing its intended purposes of making things easier to handle.That you do not like the rules has nothing to do with what the rules are.

Also removing penalties on attacks with multiple manufactured weapons that are not TWF is hardly a bad thing IMHO.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I think you're just clearly wrong (sorry). If the use of NAT is "movement", then you cannot use a 5-foot step before it or after it.

Just like you can't 5-foot step before or after a charge, or before or after a run, etc.

Yes but Charge and run specifically state you can't take a 5 foot step as well. So they are not relevant when talking about NAT's 5ft step.

You can run as a full-round action. (If you do, you do not also get a 5-foot step.) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#run)

You can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#charge)

[broodax]

I don't know why that matters. Those are nice call-outs, but they're entirely unnecessary because the rules for 5-foot step say


You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. You can’t take more than one 5-foot step in a round, and you can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round when you move any distance.

which already rules out moving when you charge or run. Heck, the 5-foot step rules are themselves redundant. I'm pretty sure this is an addition because so many people were confused by 5-foot steps in 3.0.

Note that they 5-foot step rules do not say what you seem to think, which is something I'm guessing like "You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform the Move move action." They say "any other kind of movement" and "move any distance".

[Gwendol]

What Off-hand penalty? If you are not using TWF, there is no off-hand penalty. That was 3.0

That you do not like the rules has nothing to do with what the rules are.

Also removing penalties on attacks with multiple manufactured weapons that are not TWF is hardly a bad thing IMHO.

No, there is always a main hand and an off-hand. Please look up the description of a double weapon such as the urgrosh or hook-hammer.

[Andezzar]

No, there is always a main hand and an off-hand. Please look up the description of a double weapon such as the urgrosh or hook-hammer.Please look as well:
A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he or she incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.

The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it. A creature wielding a double weapon in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.
The individual weapons do not list the option to use them with two hands because that is already clear from their category: two-handed melee weapons

The underlined part also clears up that this penalty only applies when you use the full attack action.

There is no penalty for a right handed person for attacking with the left hand and vice versa.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I don't know why that matters. Those are nice call-outs, but they're entirely unnecessary because the rules for 5-foot step say



which already rules out moving when you charge or run. Heck, the 5-foot step rules are themselves redundant. I'm pretty sure this is an addition because so many people were confused by 5-foot steps in 3.0.

Note that they 5-foot step rules do not say what you seem to think, which is something I'm guessing like "You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform the Move move action." They say "any other kind of movement" and "move any distance".

Yes the "move any distance" I believe is referring to the move Move action because they define the word "Move".

My original argument and I still believe it, is that a 5 ft step does not count as movement. Simply because they define Move. Also because It doesn't count as an action (as per the glossary definition pg 304 in the PHB "A small position adjustment that does not count as an action") also the fact that it is not in the movement section.

All the other movement based abilities in the PHB specifically call out specifically that you cannot make a 5ft step in conjuncture with them. (look at withdraw).

My earlier example of hustle was wrong now that I re-read the hustle power as it gives you an extra move action not allows you to move, and it also specifically says no 5ft steps. Dim-door would work because it is not movement.

[Legendxp]

Originally Posted by srd
Woodland Stride (Ex)
Starting at 2nd level, a druid may move through any sort of undergrowth (such as natural thorns, briars, overgrown areas, and similar terrain) at her normal speed and without taking damage or suffering any other impairment.


Originally Posted by srd
Dying
A dying character is unconscious and near death. She has -1 to -9 current hit points. A dying character can take no actions and is unconscious. At the end of each round (starting with the round in which the character dropped below 0 hit points), the character rolls d% to see whether she becomes stable. She has a 10% chance to become stable. If she does not, she loses 1 hit point. If a dying character reaches -10 hit points, she is dead.

According to the argument you are making, this is a contradiction in the rules for any Druid who happens to be dying while in an area of thorns. She can take no actions, but she can also move her normal speed! Contradiction!

Rules very often state that they are exceptions to other rules, or that they allow additional uses of abilities, etc. This one does not. It gives you the ability to do something (attack and move during it). It does not change the rules of 5-foot steps, or any other rules.

By your logic, by gaining this feat you can use the ability it grants without consulting the rules of actions at all. Can I use this feat if I've already taken a full round action? Of course, it says I can do stuff, I must be able to do it no matter what I've already done. Can I use this if I'm stunned, of course, it says I can do it and it doesn't matter what conditions affect me.

No, that is silly. You still follow all the rules when using this ability, and it isn't a contradiction, you're just not able to use this ability some of the time because of the rules (namely, the one that says you can't take a 5-ft step and move by other means in the same round).

I was originally convinced I was wrong because of this. However, the text for NAT says "As a full-round action". Which means you cannot initiate it if you cannot perform full-round actions. I interpret the phrase "you may immediately take a 5-foot step" differently. Since you have initiated the feat, NOW it makes exceptions. You still need to follow general rules to activate/initiate/start/use a feat, but when the feat tells you to do something (after you've started, it mind you) you can ignore them.

[broodax]

Yes the "move any distance" I believe is referring to the move Move action because they define the word "Move".

My original argument and I still believe it, is that a 5 ft step does not count as movement. Simply because they define Move. Also because It doesn't count as an action (as per the glossary definition pg 304 in the PHB "A small position adjustment that does not count as an action") also the fact that it is not in the movement section.

All the other movement based abilities in the PHB specifically call out specifically that you cannot make a 5ft step in conjuncture with them. (look at withdraw).

My earlier example of hustle was wrong now that I re-read the hustle power as it gives you an extra move action not allows you to move, and it also specifically says no 5ft steps. Dim-door would work because it is not movement.

So, it appears that you are saying that you believe they really meant that only the use of the Move move action precludes taking a 5-foot step, and that any other kind of movement (even though they said, exactly "any other kind of movement") needs to call out the fact that a 5-foot step is not allowed during the same round as its use? Even if it's a move action, if it's not the Move move action, then it should allow a 5-foot step unless it states otherwise?

If so, then I would like to present the "Use Skill" action. "Use Skill" can be a move action, say, when you use Tumble. So as long as I use tumble to move, I can also take a 5-foot step. Same for swim, or escape artist (this is even a full-round action, not a move action, sometimes).

Or Use Feat, as is more applicable to this argument. Spring attack only requires the use of an attack action. It doesn't rule out a 5-foot step in addition to this movement.

Or how about just a plan old action in the combat section, Bull Rush can be a standard action and doesn't disallow taking a 5-foot step in addition.

I find it very unlikely that all of these are mistakes, and much more likely that when the designers wrote "move any distance" and "any other kind of movement" they did not mean "only the Move move action".

[Gwendol]

Please look as well:
The individual weapons do not list the option to use them with two hands because that is already clear from their category: two-handed melee weapons

The underlined part also clears up that this penalty only applies when you use the full attack action.

There is no penalty for a right handed person for attacking with the left hand and vice versa.

Of course. It still does nothing to address the fact that you still have a main hand and an off hand end to them.

[Andezzar]

Of course. It still does nothing to address the fact that you still have a main hand and an off hand end to them.Only if you use both ends. If you don't, you use either end as a two-handed weapon. there is no main hand or off hand then.

[Fax Celestis]

Of course. It still does nothing to address the fact that you still have a main hand and an off hand end to them.

According to what, exactly?

[broodax]

I was originally convinced I was wrong because of this. However, the text for NAT says "As a full-round action". Which means you cannot initiate it if you cannot perform full-round actions. I interpret the phrase "you may immediately take a 5-foot step" differently. Since you have initiated the feat, NOW it makes exceptions. You still need to follow general rules to activate/initiate/start/use a feat, but when the feat tells you to do something (after you've started, it mind you) you can ignore them.

But it does not make exceptions for the 5-foot step you already took. That 5-foot step requires that you not make any movement at ANY time during the round, not just before it. It's not that you can't take the 5-foot step during the feat. You can't take the first 5-foot step if you move later.

[RagnaroksChosen]

So, it appears that you are saying that you believe they really meant that only the use of the Move move action precludes taking a 5-foot step, and that any other kind of movement (even though they said, exactly "any other kind of movement") needs to call out the fact that a 5-foot step is not allowed during the same round as its use? Even if it's a move action, if it's not the Move move action, then it should allow a 5-foot step unless it states otherwise?

Sort of. My argument is that a 5-ft step is not considered movement.



If so, then I would like to present the "Use Skill" action. "Use Skill" can be a move action, say, when you use Tumble. So as long as I use tumble to move, I can also take a 5-foot step. Same for swim, or escape artist (this is even a full-round action, not a move action, sometimes).

No because tumble specifically states that you use it as part of your movement, which means you need to be using another action to gain that movement.

Action

Not applicable. Tumbling is part of movement, so a Tumble check is part of a move action.



Or Use Feat, as is more applicable to this argument. Spring attack only requires the use of an attack action. It doesn't rule out a 5-foot step in addition to this movement.

This one I am not sure about. Though I could see allowing a 5ft step before or after a spring attack. I mean you could take a move action before or after spring attacking. I don't see why this would be any different.



Or how about just a plan old action in the combat section, Bull Rush can be a standard action and doesn't disallow taking a 5-foot step in addition.

I find it very unlikely that all of these are mistakes, and much more likely that when the designers wrote "move any distance" and "any other kind of movement" they did not mean "only the Move move action".

To be fair there are more places where it calls out specifically you can't take a 5ft action where you say its not needed then places like bull-rush. Which I don't see any reason why you can't 5ft step before bull-rushing. if you don't do any other move action movement.

Don't get me wrong. I see what you are saying. The way I see RAW is that they do define move and movement therefore we need to go by those definitions.

[broodax]

Fair enough. I find it highly unlikely that they meant "the Move move action" and instead wrote "any kind of movement". But I wish they had wrote "the Move move action" because that would certainly clarify a lot of things, so I can see where you're coming from.

[Legendxp]

But it does not make exceptions for the 5-foot step you already took.

So what would be the point of a "specific trumps general" rule if a specific feat can't trump a general rule? I mean the counterpoint you used had the exact same setup. A general rule for druids moving in undergrowth and a specific rule for druids that are currently dying.

[broodax]

The specific rule has nothing to do with the 5-foot step you already took. It can't trump it, it doesn't do anything to it.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Fair enough. I find it highly unlikely that they meant "the Move move action" and instead wrote "any kind of movement". But I wish they had wrote "the Move move action" because that would certainly clarify a lot of things, so I can see where you're coming from.

For the most part I agree with you, the thing that really through me to the other side is how many specifically say you don't get 5ft movements. What would be the point of typing though.. Even travel devotion which just lets you move your speed as a swift (not a move action) says you can't take 5ft steps.

My English is not the greatest I hope I did not come off as a **** about this I wasn't trying to. I agree its badly written and there is no errata on it.

[Legendxp]

I still think we should move this to the dysfunctional thread.

If the NAT feat doesn't do anything that you couldn't have done without the feat, that seems dysfunctional.

If a 5ft step is not "movement" that also seems dysfunctional (I guess the player just teleports 5ft?).

Also, if NAT isn't TWF even though you are wielding two weapons that also seems dysfunctional.

EDIT: There are also a lot of experts there.

[Gwendol]

According to what, exactly?

According to the description of the weapon: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#urgroshDwarven

[Andezzar]

According to the description of the weapon: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#urgroshDwarvenNothing in there says that one end is an off-hand end if you do not use TWF. Even if it did, off-hand penalties only apply, if you use Two-Weapon Fighting.

[Legendxp]

Nothing in there says that one end is an off-hand end if you do not use TWF. Even if it did, off-hand penalties only apply, if you use Two-Weapon Fighting.

Also, nothing in there says that its only an off-hand weapon when it is used with TWF. I'm pretty sure you're right about the second part, but sources would help.

[Andezzar]

Also, nothing in there says that its only an off-hand weapon when it is used with TWF. I'm pretty sure you're right about the second part, but sources would help.Those penalties are only mentioned if you do use TWF:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack with that weapon when you make a full attack. Fighting in this way is very difficult, however, and you take a –6 penalty on your attack rolls with your primary
hand and a –10 penalty on attack rolls with your off hand.
You can reduce these penalties in two ways.
• If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light, as is an off-hand attack with a double weapon.
• The Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.So you must wield a second weapon in your off hand and and must get an extra attack on a full attack to fight in this way. Only then do the penalties apply.

[Legendxp]

The specific rule has nothing to do with the 5-foot step you already took. It can't trump it, it doesn't do anything to it.

I think this is the divergent point of our interpretations. I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, just that I do not believe mine is.


So you must wield a second weapon in your off hand and and must get an extra attack on a full attack to fight in this way. Only then do the penalties apply.

Oops, completely forgot about that. :smallredface: You posted it before in this thread too.

[Andezzar]

No problem, it happens.

[evyldead]

So, lol. About that build xD

[Tvtyrant]

Couldn't you just use the skates that let you take a 10 ft. step instead? Get several pairs and swap them out between battles. <- In the regards to the "cannot move before taking the 5 ft. step" for trident/net style.

Also for net and trident we found Factotum to be really good, as it gets a lot of standard actions and tricks. Razornet nets you an easy way to get damage on a touch attack (int mod + knowledge devotion) and if you throw it as a standard action using your tricksy factotum powers you can then make a full attack with the trident.