5-foot steps and attacks of opportunity

[Snake-Aes]

The SRD says the 5-foot step movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Then, the table at its very side says it only applies for the movement, and that leaving a threatened area with it may still provoke the AoO.
Then the AoO section goes and says leaving a threatened square with a 5-foot step does not provoke AoO.

After all, what the hell is going on?

[Optimystik]

This might help:

Spoiler

Show

Also, here:

Taking a 5-foot Step: If you leave a threatened square by taking a 5-foot step, your movement doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity from any foe that threatens that square. Remember, however, that you can take a 5-foot step only if you don't perform any other movement during your turn (see page 144 in the Player's Handbook).

[Dogmantra]

Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity.

if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity.

Emphasis mine.

Plus there's the rule of text trumps table.

[Snake-Aes]

That's what I'm assuming, but this bit on the table confused me:

Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity.

[Fax Celestis]

You just said it yourself, in your quote: "usually provokes".

5' steps are a specific exemption.

[Optimystik]

It's also specific trumps general. Leaving a threatened square usually provokes - but a 5-foot step is a specific form of movement that never provokes. It thus overrides the general rule.

Swordsaged

[Keld Denar]

Yea, a 5' step almost never provokes (Thicket of Blades stance is the exception). The Withdraw action is another instance of movement that doesn't provoke. Also, Tumble.

[nedz]

Withdraw doesn't provoke for the first square IIRC.
Casting defensively doesn't provoke.
In fact there are a whole list of things which do not provoke in the PH.

It can be a bit confusing to start with, but it becomes obvious with enough play.

[John Campbell]

This might help:

Spoiler

Show

Wow, what a terrible example. No wonder people keep making this mistake.

It talks about an AoO when Tordek moves from B to E, but if all of his movement is happening in one turn, the movement from B to E does not provoke. He already provoked an AoO for moving out of the ogre's threatened area when moving from A to B, and it doesn't get a second one for that reason, even if it's got Combat Reflexes. It's not strictly wrong, because it might be two different movements (though if it is, he should be making the B to E move as a five-foot-step and still not provoking), but it really ought to make that clear. Or use a better example... the A to B movement would serve just fine as an example for when the AoO goes off, without the potential for confusion. If the B to E movement is shown at all, it ought to be as a specific example of how it doesn't provoke.

The Mialee example doesn't really make it clear that the reason she doesn't provoke is that she's making a five-foot-step, not that she's moving into an unthreatened square, either.

[Fax Celestis]

Wow, what a terrible example. No wonder people keep making this mistake.

This example is a poor example, considering he has a feat that explicitly gives him an AoO when charged, PLUS the AoO for moving through a threatened square.

[Optimystik]

(though if it is, he should be making the B to E move as a five-foot-step and still not provoking)

That's the problem with your explanation - he can't make a 5-foot step, unless he's doing something else in his turn. You can't just choose to make a 5-foot step unless you're doing something else that uses your move action (like a full-round action.)

In other words, he is making separate move actions that just happen to be 5 feet each, but they are not 5-foot steps. This is why A -> B provokes, and B -> E later also provokes.

I agree that Tordek's movement is confusing (why would you take a move action to move 5 feet and provoke, when a 5-foot step + full round action accomplishes the same goal without provoking?) I was linking the diagram for Mialee's movement, which answered the OP's question.

[Douglas]

That's what I'm assuming, but this bit on the table confused me:

That bit is intended for the table as a whole and means that, for example, the part of a grapple where you move into your target's space provokes as normal for movement, and is separate from the provocation for attempting to grapple in the first place. It does not override the specific rule of 5' steps don't provoke.

[John Campbell]

This example is a poor example, considering he has a feat that explicitly gives him an AoO when charged, PLUS the AoO for moving through a threatened square.

Five feats: Combat Reflexes and Spring Attack are specifically mentioned. Spring Attack requires Mobility and Dodge; that's four. The spiked chain he's using for this is an exotic weapon; proficiency in that requires another feat. I believe it's safer to assume that he's proficient with his weapon than that he has the non-core Hold The Line. And that's five.

Besides, if we assume that he has Hold The Line, his statement that he had to be a half-ogre (i.e., Large) to pull it off becomes false. With a reach weapon and Hold The Line, a Medium creature gets two AoOs against someone charging through his threatened zone. Being Large doesn't affect this. Being Large only gives you a wider threatened zone, which only matters if you think that you can get more than one AoO on someone moving through it.

And Roy could avoid that second AoO by just moving into contact rather than charging... the half-ogre isn't springing back far enough to get out of single-move range.

Also, a Large creature with a reach weapon has 20' reach, not 15'.

[Snake-Aes]

Five feats: Combat Reflexes and Spring Attack are specifically mentioned. Spring Attack requires Mobility and Dodge; that's four. The spiked chain he's using for this is an exotic weapon; proficiency in that requires another feat. I believe it's safer to assume that he's proficient with his weapon than that he has the non-core Hold The Line. And that's five.

Besides, if we assume that he has Hold The Line, his statement that he had to be a half-ogre (i.e., Large) to pull it off becomes false. With a reach weapon and Hold The Line, a Medium creature gets two AoOs against someone charging through his threatened zone. Being Large doesn't affect this. Being Large only gives you a wider threatened zone, which only matters if you think that you can get more than one AoO on someone moving through it.

And Roy could avoid that second AoO by just moving into contact rather than charging... the half-ogre isn't springing back far enough to get out of single-move range.

Also, a Large creature with a reach weapon has 20' reach, not 15'.

where does the second AoO come from in the charge? movement only causes one AoO per round per attacker.

[John Campbell]

That's the problem with your explanation - he can't make a 5-foot step, unless he's doing something else in his turn. You can't just choose to make a 5-foot step unless you're doing something else that uses your move action (like a full-round action.)

??? You can choose to make a five-foot step any time you want, as long as you're not making any other movement in the round. You don't have to use the move action for something else; you just have to not use it for movement.

In other words, he is making separate move actions that just happen to be 5 feet each, but they are not 5-foot steps. This is why A -> B provokes, and B -> E later also provokes.

Unless the move actions are in different rounds, no, B to E does not provoke. And if the movements are in different rounds, there's nothing that prevents him from making the second one as a five-foot step. I mean, he can do it as a regular move, if he's stupid, which is why I said their example isn't strictly wrong... but it's still a bad and misleading example. If it's all the same round, B to E does not provoke. If it's different rounds, B to E does provoke, but he can and should use a five-foot step... and it doesn't, in any case, say that it's different rounds (or not), which is important.

I agree that Tordek's movement is confusing (why would you take a move action to move 5 feet and provoke, when a 5-foot step + full round action accomplishes the same goal without provoking?) I was linking the diagram for Mialee's movement, which answered the OP's question.

And I was making the tangentially related observation that we'd probably have fewer of these questions if they used better examples.

where does the second AoO come from in the charge? movement only causes one AoO per round per attacker.

Yes, that's my point. There are at least two mistakes in that strip, and while it's possible to come up with an explanation that makes the mistakes Roy's or the half-ogre's, not the Giant's, Occam's Razor says to me that the Giant failed at AoO rules.

(And if I'm misunderstanding how you meant that: Hold The Line gives you an AoO against an attacker charging into your threatened area. This is separate from and in addition to any AoOs you might ordinarily get from their movement. But I don't think the half-ogre has Hold The Line, and if he does, it just changes where the mistake is.)

[Optimystik]

Unless the move actions are in different rounds, no, B to E does not provoke. And if the movements are in different rounds, there's nothing that prevents him from making the second one as a five-foot step. I mean, he can do it as a regular move, if he's stupid, which is why I said their example isn't strictly wrong... but it's still a bad and misleading example. If it's all the same round, B to E does not provoke. If it's different rounds, B to E does provoke, but he can and should use a five-foot step... and it doesn't, in any case, say that it's different rounds (or not), which is important.

I know, this is all covering what I already said. They didn't point out it was in different rounds and that he wasn't using a 5-foot step - I said all of that and acknowledged that the Tordek movement was a bad example.

Again, I linked the diagram primarily for Mialee's movement.

[Escheton]

Also, a Large creature with a reach weapon has 20' reach, not 15'.

yeah, you are wrong there. It does not double reach. It just adds to it.

[Fax Celestis]

Five feats: Combat Reflexes and Spring Attack are specifically mentioned. Spring Attack requires Mobility and Dodge; that's four. The spiked chain he's using for this is an exotic weapon; proficiency in that requires another feat. I believe it's safer to assume that he's proficient with his weapon than that he has the non-core Hold The Line. And that's five.

We're speaking of a cheesy character. I think it's reasonable to assume he took the Shaky flaw.

[Draz74]

On the half-ogre OotS strip: Rich himself did indeed make the mistake of thinking movement provoked more than once per turn. Hold the Line is a clever way to retcon that strip (although it still doesn't explain why the Half-Ogre is getting 3 AoOs per turn, rather than two), but it wasn't originally intended. I remember The Giant posting a "whoops, oh well, the joke was really the point anyway" when this was pointed out back in 2006.

Wow, what a terrible example.

It talks about an AoO when Tordek moves from B to E, but if all of his movement is happening in one turn, the movement from B to E does not provoke. He already provoked an AoO for moving out of the ogre's threatened area when moving from A to B, and it doesn't get a second one for that reason, even if it's got Combat Reflexes. It's not strictly wrong, because it might be two different movements (though if it is, he should be making the B to E move as a five-foot-step and still not provoking), but it really ought to make that clear. Or use a better example... the A to B movement would serve just fine as an example for when the AoO goes off, without the potential for confusion. If the B to E movement is shown at all, it ought to be as a specific example of how it doesn't provoke.

In fact, it's just plain wrong when it says that Tordek (if dropped by AoO) would be in square B. He would be in square A, because "attacks of opportunity take effect before the actions that provoked them."

[Chen]

yeah, you are wrong there. It does not double reach. It just adds to it.

Can't access the SRD here but I'm fairly sure there's some line saying a reach weapon doubles your normal reach. It might have been different in 3.0 though.

[Douglas]

yeah, you are wrong there. It does not double reach. It just adds to it.

Most reach weapons double the wielder’s natural reach ... A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

John is exactly right.

[John Campbell]

yeah, you are wrong there. It does not double reach. It just adds to it.

No.

A typical Large character wielding a reach weapon of the appropriate size can attack a creature 15 or 20 feet away, but not adjacent creatures or creatures up to 10 feet away.

We're speaking of a cheesy character. I think it's reasonable to assume he took the Shaky flaw.

Yeah, he could easily have more than five feats total... even disregarding flaws, I don't think we know what level he was, and Fighter feats add up pretty quickly. But he says that he used five feats for his trick.

In fact, it's just plain wrong when it says that Tordek (if dropped by AoO) would be in square B. He would be in square A, because "attacks of opportunity take effect before the actions that provoked them."

It's the B to E move that's provoking the AoO in question, though. Having him fall in B if that's the attack that drops him isn't wrong... it's just that they really shouldn't be talking about the B to E movement provoking in the first place, because that's confusing at best.


Yeesh. I really didn't mean to hijack this thread like this. Sorry, Snake-Aes!

[Escheton]

I stand corrected. Also, yay. My guisarmewielder just got better.

[Kantolin]

It says in the PHB, on page 138, 'Moving out of more than one square threatened by the opponent doesn't count as more than one opportunity'.

So I believe what happened is, Tordek went from A->B, and the ogre opted not to take his AOO. Summarily, when Tordek went B->E, the ogre opted to take his AOO this time and swung at him. Afterwards, had Tordek continued moving he'd be fine - the ogre has already taken his AOO vs Tordek moving.

At least, that's how I always percieved it. Do you /have/ to take the first AOO against movement for it to count? Couldn't the ogre have decided he really wanted Tordek at B so he can give the dwarf a good smashing, and thus not take the initial AOO but take one for the second exited square?

[Snake-Aes]

It says in the PHB, on page 138, 'Moving out of more than one square threatened by the opponent doesn't count as more than one opportunity'.

So I believe what happened is, Tordek went from A->B, and the ogre opted not to take his AOO. Summarily, when Tordek went B->E, the ogre opted to take his AOO this time and swung at him. Afterwards, had Tordek continued moving he'd be fine - the ogre has already taken his AOO vs Tordek moving.

At least, that's how I always percieved it. Do you /have/ to take the first AOO against movement for it to count? Couldn't the ogre have decided he really wanted Tordek at B so he can give the dwarf a good smashing, and thus not take the initial AOO but take one for the second exited square?

the problem with that solution is that it adds a layer of complexity that is not explained. The players have no indication that such a thing is what happened.