5 foot shift

[The Shadowdove]

Hey peeps,

I'm afb at the moment. But i don't remember seeing or not seeing whether or not the shift exists on 5e.

Mind sharing your movement expertise ?

Thank Ya!!

-Dove

[CrusaderJoe]

Hey peeps,

I'm afb at the moment. But i don't remember seeing or not seeing whether or not the shift exists on 5e.

Mind sharing your movement expertise ?

Thank Ya!!

-Dove

Nope, but for the most part you don't need them.

[jaydubs]

Keep in mind there's no longer an attack of opportunity for moving while in melee, only for moving out of an enemy's melee range. So you can walk circles around an enemy without issue, just not away from it.

[Psyren]

Keep in mind there's no longer an attack of opportunity for moving while in melee, only for moving out of an enemy's melee range. So you can walk circles around an enemy without issue, just not away from it.

Wasn't "away" the primary direction most people would 5ft. when in melee with a foe anyway?

[Jeraa]

Wasn't "away" the primary direction most people would 5ft. when in melee with a foe anyway?

Only reason for that would of been to avoid the Attack of Opportunity their next action would of provoked.

[jaydubs]

Circling can be useful for going after ranged or caster characters if they don't manage their spacing. Walk around the melee character, and force the archer to take an AoO or attack with disadvantage. It can also be useful for casters to walk around to manage their AoEs.

[mephnick]

That's one thing I'm really glad they got rid of. Even as someone who loves maps and minis over TotM, 5-foot step always seemed way too "boardgamey" for me.

[CrusaderJoe]

That's one thing I'm really glad they got rid of. Even as someone who loves maps and minis over TotM, 5-foot step always seemed way too "boardgamey" for me.

The whole idea of OA's is a bit silly. You are fighting some one and if you move away from them, they get a free attack on you?

That's just silly... Unless you close your eyes and walk... While dropoing your gaurd... Yeah...

[BootStrapTommy]

You can Disengage as an action, making your movements not invoke AoO.

[BootStrapTommy]

The whole idea of OA's is a bit silly. You are fighting some one and if you move away from them, they get a free attack on you?

That's just silly... Unless you close your eyes and walk... While dropoing your gaurd... Yeah...
To walk away from someone, you have to turn your back on them. Turn your back on someone in combat and you've opened yourself up to get hit. AoO is common sense.

[Daishain]

To walk away from someone, you have to turn your back on them. Turn your back on someone in combat and you've opened yourself up to get hit. AoO is common sense.
Uh...

If you can't figure out how to walk backwards while keeping your guard up, you might as well slit your own throat and get it over with. Because that kind of movement is an absolute requirement in combat. There is a reason that combat between two skilled individuals very very rarely takes place with either of the two remaining still. Mobility is life.

[comk59]

Uh...

If you can't figure out how to walk backwards while keeping your guard up, you might as well slit your own throat and get it over with. Because that kind of movement is an absolute requirement in combat. There is a reason that combat between two skilled individuals very very rarely takes place with either of the two remaining still. Mobility is life.

It also probably takes about 2-3 seconds to take a step backwards in a combat situation without dropping your guard. Hence the disengage action.

[Knaight]

Only reason for that would of been to avoid the Attack of Opportunity their next action would of provoked.
Alternately, it's to fall back to a better position, because if they don't things get ugly in the near future. For instance, you know if you stay still, you'll end up surrounded, but if you make a fighting retreat in one direction you can at least try to keep everyone on one side of you.


To walk away from someone, you have to turn your back on them. Turn your back on someone in combat and you've opened yourself up to get hit. AoO is common sense.
Stepping backwards is a thing. More than that though, you can move generally sideways, keeping your guard up while moving at speed away. Also, nobody is walking - a lot of movement is going to be short of a dead run, but an actual walk isn't disengaging from anything, and is just generally not going to work up close and personal.


It also probably takes about 2-3 seconds to take a step backwards in a combat situation without dropping your guard. Hence the disengage action.
It really doesn't. I do hectic melee sparring weekly, weather permitting. That involves a great deal of disengaging, and it never takes 2-3 seconds.

[rollingForInit]

No, disengaging doesn't take 2-3 seconds, if you watch historical fencing for instance (HEMA), disengaging and poking seems to be 90% of the entire thing. It's very fast and a part of the attacking and people keep quite a distance from each other most of the time, they aren't up in each other's faces a whole minute.

But D&D combat is hardly realistic in any sort of sense, so debating realism in that regard seems utterly pointless. I mean, dual-wielding longswords (instead of just a parrying dagger)? Using dexterity for rapiers instead of strength (they are quite heavy and a thrust requires power)? Using dexterity for initiative? There's so much weird **** going on with D&D combat that it's just easier to just disregard it and have fun. Otherwise you'd have to redesign so much of the entire system (which, I admit, would be fun).

[Kryx]

historical fencing

D&D is more akin to a brawl, not a 1 on 1 combat. Fencing is not relevant at all.

5e covers how to disengage from combat with the disengage action. The 5ft step is an antiquated hack that was likely put in to make fighters able to move at all without getting Opportunity Attacked every round.

I'm very glad the need for it is gone.

[rollingForInit]

D&D is more akin to a brawl, not a 1 on 1 combat. Fencing is not relevant at all.

5e covers how to disengage from combat with the disengage action. The 5ft step is an antiquated hack that was likely put in to make fighters able to move at all without getting Opportunity Attacked every round.

I'm very glad the need for it is gone.

Yes, but historical martial arts is based on how people were taught to fight in battle, not fencing for sports. But it'd also vary depending on, for instance, what type of armor people wore.

My point was that D&D is so unrealistic already, there's no point in arguing about what's more realistic of shifting or disengaging. Better to discuss which is better from a gameplay perspective.

[Knaight]

D&D is more akin to a brawl, not a 1 on 1 combat. Fencing is not relevant at all.

5e covers how to disengage from combat with the disengage action. The 5ft step is an antiquated hack that was likely put in to make fighters able to move at all without getting Opportunity Attacked every round.

A brawl is one of those cases when bailing quickly is even more important. You can't get surrounded in 1 on 1 combat, if you've got three people coming towards you you want to move, so that you have all three of them on one side. It's still a problem, but it's a lot less of one than being surrounded. As for the original context regarding how long it takes to disengage, it's essentially the exact same as in fencing. If a tight formation is being used it will take longer, but a skirmish? No.

[holygroundj]

Yes, but historical martial arts is based on how people were taught to fight in battle, not fencing for sports. But it'd also vary depending on, for instance, what type of armor people wore.

My point was that D&D is so unrealistic already, there's no point in arguing about what's more realistic of shifting or disengaging. Better to discuss which is better from a gameplay perspective.

agreed, but they're not the "problem." Attacks of opportunity are. I think AOs increase the complexity of combat in a good way. Not that hit and run tactics aren't valid, or fun, but I like the consequences AOs add. Since we're in the 5e forums, I just envision it as people aren't walking away with their backs turned, but that simply moving is enough of a trigger. To avoid an AO you actually have to concentrate on avoiding it (like, the swing still happens in that 6 seconds, it just auto fails or something but even this is crude and doesn't really work)

I like that rogues and monks and people with feats can train themselves to make AOs more trivial. I like that there are feats that make AOs different or less trivial. My headcannon just has to adapt to the consequences of having them in the game.

[BootStrapTommy]

Uh...

If you can't figure out how to walk backwards while keeping your guard up, you might as well slit your own throat and get it over with. Because that kind of movement is an absolute requirement in combat. There is a reason that combat between two skilled individuals very very rarely takes place with either of the two remaining still. Mobility is life.
Spoken like someone whose never been in a real fight before.

I'd like to see you back peddle 10 yards in 6 secs while fully maintaining your guard to the same level as if you were fight within close proximity, while maintaining your offense. Even someone phenomially trained would find that a tall order.

The way combat works in D&D, a round is 6 secs of time. All turns taken are in actuality taking place roughly simultaneously, with initiative representing the slight microsecond differences in character reaction times within that 6 secs.

It's worth noting however that 5e has exactly what you are talking about. It's called Disengage. But it robs you of your offense, since doing so requires more effort than just turning and running, which leaves you open.

[Talderas]

Wasn't "away" the primary direction most people would 5ft. when in melee with a foe anyway?

Toward was also common in order to retain the full attack action.

[BootStrapTommy]

AoO represents openings which can be taken advantage of. Like in real life, when someone throws a punch too wide. You can certainly backpeddle during combat fine without problem, but back peddling 30ft in 6 secs while maintaining your guard? You're as like to trip as succeed.

And on a battle field with multiply combatants? You seriously think you could keep track of, and keep your guard up to, all of them? You only have 200° of vision on a 360° battlefield. If you can, you are certainly not what is considered a 1st level character. But that's what leveling, feats, and class features are for. Or high AC.

[BootStrapTommy]

5e covers how to disengage from combat with the disengage action. The 5ft step is an antiquated hack that was likely put in to make fighters able to move at all without getting Opportunity Attacked every round.
I think it's gone for melee-magic balance reasons. It let spellcasters avoid concentration for casting in melee.

[rollingForInit]

agreed, but they're not the "problem." Attacks of opportunity are. I think AOs increase the complexity of combat in a good way. Not that hit and run tactics aren't valid, or fun, but I like the consequences AOs add. Since we're in the 5e forums, I just envision it as people aren't walking away with their backs turned, but that simply moving is enough of a trigger. To avoid an AO you actually have to concentrate on avoiding it (like, the swing still happens in that 6 seconds, it just auto fails or something but even this is crude and doesn't really work)

I like that rogues and monks and people with feats can train themselves to make AOs more trivial. I like that there are feats that make AOs different or less trivial. My headcannon just has to adapt to the consequences of having them in the game.

And with that I agree. AoO's are fun. D&D combat is supposed to be fun. It isn't supposed to be realistic. Therefore, OoA's are fun and good.

[rhouck]

You can Disengage as an action, making your movements not invoke AoO.

This. There is nothing stopping you from backing away and using your full move without provoking an AoO.

What you CAN'T do is make an attack and THEN move away without provoking an AoO. One can think of it as you either use your 6 seconds to move away swiftly and safely, or you use part of it to find an opening to make an attack and then try to still run away (but putting yourself at risk).

And for those arguing "realism"... in real life you don't have to wait for your opponent to complete his entire move before you take yours either. In real life, your opponent could simply continue to take a step forward for every step you took back. But that obviously doesn't work in a turn-based game, thus other methods need to used to prevent abuse. If you are hard up to engage in hit and run tactics, then take the Mobile feat.

[CrusaderJoe]

This. There is nothing stopping you from backing away and using your full move without provoking an AoO.

What you CAN'T do is make an attack and THEN move away without provoking an AoO. One can think of it as you either use your 6 seconds to move away swiftly and safely, or you use part of it to find an opening to make an attack and then try to still run away (but putting yourself at risk).

And for those arguing "realism"... in real life you don't have to wait for your opponent to complete his entire move before you take yours either. In real life, your opponent could simply continue to take a step forward for every step you took back. But that obviously doesn't work in a turn-based game, thus other methods need to used to prevent abuse. If you are hard up to engage in hit and run tactics, then take the Mobile feat.

Nit pick... In D&D people aren't waiting turns and attacking back and forth. That is just how we are able to play the game but within the game world everything is happening all at once.

Also, Rogues can Disengage with a bonus action, I'm not sure why no one else couldn't learn this ability but whatever.

[Mellack]

Spoken like someone whose never been in a real fight before.

I'd like to see you back peddle 10 yards in 6 secs while fully maintaining your guard to the same level as if you were fight within close proximity, while maintaining your offense. Even someone phenomially trained would find that a tall order.



The totally unrealistic part is that you are not allowed to go 10 yards away without an AoO, but that you can run the exact same distance around the baddie with no trouble. Moving from one corner of a dragon to the other can be that distance, but even though the dragon can hit you during the whole run, no AoO. Don't even start on polearms.

[rollingForInit]

Spoken like someone whose never been in a real fight before.

I'd like to see you back peddle 10 yards in 6 secs while fully maintaining your guard to the same level as if you were fight within close proximity, while maintaining your offense. Even someone phenomially trained would find that a tall order.

Go to youtube and search for "hema longsword finals" and watch them fight. It's all rapid skirmishes. And much of it as historically correct as possible (although it's not known to 100% how people fought or were trained to fight with swords).

[Kane0]

Hey peeps,

I'm afb at the moment. But i don't remember seeing or not seeing whether or not the shift exists on 5e.

Mind sharing your movement expertise ?

Thank Ya!!

-Dove

Already answered, but there is no more shifting or 5' steps, and no reason to have them since they arent necessary anymore compared to say 3rd ed.
Here there is only one thing that provokes an AoO, voluntarily leaving an enemy's threatened area. Thats it. The reason the 5' step and the shift was implemented in the first place was to a) reposition yourself and b) to avoid provoking for an action your about to do, like casting, using a ranged weapon, drining a potion, all manner of things.

But in 5e you dont provoke from any of those things, and certain benefits of position such as flanking are optional and may not be used in the game. As such it doesnt make much sense for the 5' step or shifting to exist anymore. The gap left is filled by the disengage action, which allows you to move and not provoke.
Other things change this of course, such as polearm master, the rogues bonus action disengage, the mobile feat, etc but the basic premise remains true that since no mechanic is needed to save archers and casters in melee than it is omited for a smoother game.

If you play you will notice this pretty quickly, fights have the potential to be very mobile and characters suffer far less drawbacks for closing into sword/axe/hammer range than in other editions.