Feats-Step Up


Skills and Feats

51 to 66 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Dennis da Ogre wrote:

The problem is not with the rules, it's with the players expectation.

As a DM you want your player to be happy and we let them get away with lots of little things like this. So when he changes his mind you give him the option of withdrawing or taking a full move action instead of the 5' step. If the player opts for a move action then he takes a AoO as normal. If the player opts to withdraw then follow the normal rules.

If the player is aware of the rule then he knows it's possible that he might get whacked and should deal with that possibility as appropriate. Just like they do with combat reflexes.

I think I would like your DMing.

But beyond expectations is what would the player know? You are right the first time it happens, but once everyone is aware of the danger of Step Up, what do you let them do? Some DM's say "He has his eye on you and is ready to move forward if you retreat." Other would just say, "He follows you and you are now committed to your declared Full Round Action."

If the rules allow these immediate reactions, then the rules should say how players can respond or not respond. With Combat Reflexes it is just a fun little AoO from the enemy. Then the player moves on. When Step Up occurs the players probably just started his move, I think there will be arguments. Actually, the argument is not the issue. The issue is that each DM will make up House Rules that resolve how they want to handle it.

Sovereign Court

Duncan & Dragons wrote:

I think the issue is declaration of your action. It sounds like the way LKL plays the player would say "I am doing a Full Round Action to get all my attacks (or something like that). I take this five foot step (which does not provoke as AoO). Then I attack.."

"STOP," Says DM, "He has Step Up and he takes a 5' Step to be next to you."

Then the argument breaks out. The player wants to react to the Step Up. The DM might rule that the player is committed. The question in my mind is does the DM say you must do a Reiterative attack or does he allow you to substitute another Full Round Action as a response to the Step Up. If the DM wants to let the player react, can the player now do say .... a Standard Action w/o movement?

(As a blatant plug, I like my 5'Step w/o AoO Move Action proposed above.).

No its not quite like that, the player wouldn't have to make a full attack, he could do something else. But when they move they have to say what kind of movement they are making. if they move 5ft or 40 ft they have to specify wether they are making a regular move, 5 ft step, charge, or withdraw because each of the different types of movement has different rules. I allow players to make an attack, and if that attack misses they can alter course, I don't say declare your action no deviation if deviation is allowed between a standard and a move, if they try to move thirty feet and for whatever reason (contingency spell teleport whatever) it turns out they were followed, they haven't allready declared what they are doing for their standard action. but if a character is moving, they have to declare what type of movement they are using. they can't just move their piece on the board like it was chess and expect the DM to figure out if it was a normal move a withdraw action etc. And I also do allow takebacks sometimes if its something the character would know not to do, but not if it negates actions that are allready resolved that the character wouldn't have known about. step up is one of those, the player takes a 5 foot step, the monster follows, the player says hey I don't want to do that then, I won't let them take that back because there was no way their character knew that the creature would be able to do that before hand.

What you guys are saying can happen is something that can't by the rules pure and simple, if they took a 5 foot step, they can't then turn it into a move, no matter how reasonable it seems. DMs may not enforce it heavily, but that's the way the action works. you can't change a 5 foot step into a move action. in the same way that you can't make a withdraw action and then if it turns out the DM says that the creature wouldn't have bothered to take an AoO say oh well then it was just a normal move. the DM might say ok, but by the rules that isn't allowed.

Sovereign Court

another example:

You decide you need to run away. you aren't threatening enemies so you start running, you get 20 feet away when you spring a trap, the DM asks for your Flat footed AC, you say well I only moved 20 feet my full move is 30 so I'm not going to be running after all it was just a move action.

No you were running, just because you hadn't moved more than 20ft doesn't mean that you aren't forced to follow the running rules.

It's the same thing with a 5 foot step, you resolved the 5 foot step when you moved 5 ft. the enemy followed with step up. even though you haven't done anything else you can't move because you took a 5 foot step and the rules for a 5 foot step are that you can't take any other move action. now wether you take an attack, full attack, drink a potion, what have you that's still open for whatever you want. but you can't say, oh it wasn't a 5 ft step, it was a full move action.


lastknightleft wrote:
No you were running, just because you hadn't moved more than 20ft doesn't mean that you aren't forced to follow the running rules.

Are you a DM who tracks everyone's encumbrance to the last sling stone, too? Yeah, that DM! ;)


I believe 3.x moved away from "declaring (all) actions" (at the beginning of the turn)
But when they move they have to say what kind of movement they are making. if they move 5ft or 40 ft they have to specify wether they are making a regular move, 5 ft step, charge, or withdraw because each of the different types of movement has different rules.
Like I haven't seen where this is in the rules, for example (I may be blind, please let me know)

So (for an example not potentially provoking AoO's or Step Up) if you are by the 90* corner of a corridor (you can't see around it), you need to move 5' to see what's on the other side. Maybe there's a guard you can stab RIGHT THERE, maybe he's 15 more feet away, meaning you need to move 10 more feet (15' total) and get to Standard Attack him. If we are actually getting away from "declaring actions", then you're not saying "this is my "5 Foot Step"", you are MOVING 5 FEET, and until you've used up all your actions, can continue to decide what to do. (If you move any more, than you can't do a Full Round Action)

Obviously, AoO's/ Step Up complicate the picture a bit, although I don't see why in ANY situation you couldn't take the rest of a Withdraw Action, after first stepping 5' away from an opponent (to see what's around the corner before Withdrawing there, say). If characters are moving their pieces "like Chess pieces", when they might provoke an AoO, I would tell them so, and they can then "fix" that move as either a "Free 5' Step" or "Withdraw".

For Step Up, I'm not really sure why it's limited to "5' steps": The adjacent square limitation already seems limiting enough, and I dont' see the rationale why it wouldn't apply if they want to Single Move and Standard Attack your buddy - though it's not generally as effective in that usage, since they would provoke AoO whether or not you Step Up, and would end up out of melee range - I just don't see why that should be 'barred'.

Though you COULD say that ANY move action is composed of multiple 5' steps, so all movement might apply here (as Step Up trigger). I think this is a good case for clarification, so instead of "5 Foot Step" being a game term with "special meaning" we could have "Free Step" or anything which is more distinguishable from the 5' movements a character takes as part of a Double Move, for example, walking thru a maze - That movement is "decomposable" is obvious and necessary, given that a character could otherwise "declare" a Double Move, but encounter a trap mid-way along their intended path (say, that drops down and blocks further movement), only having moved their Standard Move distance. Should they not have a Standard Action, then? (The Running/Flat Footed vs. Standard example is interesting (and I would rule likewise), but I WOULDN'T rule that just because the character's actions had caused the "Running" situational modifiers to apply to them (for that instant) that their Action Economy would need to deduct a Full Round Action, if they had only made a Standard Move so far... capice?)

In any case, it's rather silly arguing about the exact wording of the provisional Feat Ideas Jason just threw out there :-)

(I for one expect Step Up to eventually NOT preclude ALL movement from the next round, but only 5', whether or not it still precludes the next Swift Action. It seems very weird for a Feat seemingly suited to highly mobile "Swashbuckler" types to have the net effect of massively reducing their movement. Movement Conservation seems enough to balance out the ability.)

Sovereign Court

Kirth Gersen wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
No you were running, just because you hadn't moved more than 20ft doesn't mean that you aren't forced to follow the running rules.
Are you a DM who tracks everyone's encumbrance to the last sling stone, too? Yeah, that DM! ;)

No not at all. I usually don't worry about it until i learn that they turn out to have 7,000 gp on their person that they never converted to gems and that 140 lbs does make a difference.

But the fact is a person can't go running into a spear trap and then after the trap is sprung say "I only got 20ft I wasn't running" whether you were running or not is something you were doing regardless of if something unexpected happens. Same thing with a 5 foot step. It is tactically edging over while keeping your defenses up as opposed to just turning and walking 5 feet, which is a move action.


Duncan & Dragons wrote:

But beyond expectations is what would the player know? You are right the first time it happens, but once everyone is aware of the danger of Step Up, what do you let them do? Some DM's say "He has his eye on you and is ready to move forward if you retreat." Other would just say, "He follows you and you are now committed to your declared Full Round Action."

If the rules allow these immediate reactions, then the rules should say how players can respond or not respond. With Combat Reflexes it is just a fun little AoO from the enemy. Then the player moves on. When Step Up occurs the players probably just started his move, I think there will be arguments. Actually, the argument is not the issue. The issue is that each DM will make up House Rules that resolve how they want to handle it.

I think the analogy of Combat Reflexes is apt. It's a conditional action on the enemies part. It could easily be lunge instead, why is this an issue but lunge isn't? For that matter the enemy might have a readied action prepared for when the player acts. Do you let players change their action if an enemy has combat reflexes and they don't know? What about with lunge added to the mix?

Sovereign Court

Quandary wrote:
I believe 3.x moved away from "declaring (all) actions" (at the beginning of the turn)

I didn't say you declare all your actions at the begining of the turn I said that when you move you say what type of move you are making.

Just like saying "i cast a spell" doesn't work as a wizards turn. You have to specify what spell you are casting. saying "I go over there" doesn't work you specify what type of movement it is you are making.

Sovereign Court

Quandary wrote:

Though you COULD say that ANY move action is composed of multiple 5' steps,

Not by the rules you can't multiple 5' steps would never provoke an AoO moving 30 feet does. And you aren't allowed to take more than a single 5 foot step in a round, that is also spelled out in the rules.


Thanks for not getting mad that I was putting words in your mouth. I was worried as I wrote it.

lastknightleft wrote:
What you guys are saying can happen is something that can't by the rules pure and simple, if they took a 5 foot step, they can't then turn it into a move, no matter how reasonable it seems. DMs may not enforce it heavily, but that's the way the action works. you can't change a 5 foot step into a move action. in the same way that you can't make a withdraw action and then if it turns out the DM says that the creature wouldn't have bothered to take an AoO say oh well then it was just a normal move. the DM might say ok, but by the rules that isn't allowed.

To be clear, I have agreed with you for awhile that a 5' Step w/o AoO should not be converted into a regular move. I said I was wrong for gawds sake!

I would like the Step Up to say that since it is a reaction to a 5' Step, that the player can only now finish the round with actions that work with 5' Step such as Full Round Actions that allow 5' Step. RAW, even a withdrawl should not be allowed.


I didn't say you declare all your actions at the begining of the turn
I said that when you move you say what type of move you are making.

I just don't know where in the rules it says that this playstyle is required...


Quandary wrote:

I didn't say you declare all your actions at the begining of the turn

I said that when you move you say what type of move you are making.

I just don't know where in the rules it says that this playstyle is required..
(I edit my last post to reflect yours, btw)

Yea, I was talking to LastKnightLeft.


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
I think the analogy of Combat Reflexes is apt. It's a conditional action on the enemies part. It could easily be lunge instead, why is this an issue but lunge isn't? For that matter the enemy might have a readied action prepared for when the player acts. Do you let players change their action if an enemy has combat reflexes and they don't know? What about with lunge added to the mix?

I agree. I just think Step Up is a little more complex. Now Readied Action is an excellent example. Readied Action can totally evoke chaos.

EDIT: What in the world is Lunge?


Lunge is part of the secret "Black Beta" project.

No really,
I believe it was mentioned in a post by Jason Buhlman in the PF/General section, and linked from one of the stickied threads in the Feat section. Step Up was in the same 'update'/hypothetical Feat post.

Don't worry, confusion is all part of the plan :-)

Sovereign Court

Duncan & Dragons wrote:
Dennis da Ogre wrote:
I think the analogy of Combat Reflexes is apt. It's a conditional action on the enemies part. It could easily be lunge instead, why is this an issue but lunge isn't? For that matter the enemy might have a readied action prepared for when the player acts. Do you let players change their action if an enemy has combat reflexes and they don't know? What about with lunge added to the mix?

I agree. I just think Step Up is a little more complex. Now Readied Action is an excellent example. Readied Action can totally evoke chaos.

EDIT: What in the world is Lunge?

Another new feat that makes you threaten a larger area at the cost of a -4 to AC

Sovereign Court

Quandary wrote:

I didn't say you declare all your actions at the begining of the turn

I said that when you move you say what type of move you are making.

I just don't know where in the rules it says that this playstyle is required...

It's not required, it's just the way it works. if you want to allow spellcasters to say "I cast a spell" and then wait to see if any enemy tries to interrupt it before specifying what type of spell it is you can. But that leads to abuse of the caster miraculously only ever getting their low level spells interupted in the same way that moving the way you describe leads to ambiguity that otherwise wouldn't exist in the movement rules. You can play however you want. But that doesn't mean there's a rules issue if you aren't using the rules.

You don't have to declare your actions at the start of your round, but you do need to declare your actions as you are making them.

Sovereign Court

Duncan & Dragons wrote:

Thanks for not getting mad that I was putting words in your mouth. I was worried as I wrote it.

Eh don't worry, short of insulting me, you won't make me mad.


I think that I've labored at explaining my opinion on this feat long enough. Mainly, my original intent of starting this thread was to call into question the movement restriction after using Step Up. Obviously, it has moved away from that.

Again I'll say that the very fact that it's being debated to this extent at all is proof that if the feat stays, I think it needs to be clarified, as it does set up a unique situation that can't (to my knowledge) be completely explained by any other example.

In summary, I think that this feat has great potential of fixing what I believe to be a problem with 3.5 combat, in that one could move 5' back from a foe and blast away at him with bow or spell, and expect the foe to just sit there and take it. I just feel that the movement restriction imposed on the following round should be eliminated, or at least reduced and that the wording overall could be more concise.

I understand everyone's comments which to me point toward rules as intended, (and I agree and intend to play the feat in such a way), but it is nice when the rules as written support this.

That's my 2 cents... and then some.


lastknightleft wrote:

I usually don't worry about it [encumbrance] until I learn that they turn out to have 7,000 gp on their person that they never converted to gems and that 140 lbs does make a difference.

But the fact is a person can't go running into a spear trap and then after the trap is sprung say "I only got 20 ft I wasn't running" whether you were running or not is something you were doing regardless of if something unexpected happens. Same thing with a 5 foot step. It is tactically edging over while keeping your defenses up as opposed to just turning and walking 5 feet, which is a move action.

I was on the fence before, but you've convinced me. A 5-ft. step is, and should be, distinct from normal movement.

I should really add, though, that I'd like either (a) spellcasting to be a full attack action, or else (b) Step Up to be a lot better. As it is, a wizard can cast a spell, take an AoO (trivial if he's got a mirror image active), and then just move 30 ft. away, to where the fighter can't reach him. Come to think of it, I'd also like a feat that would allow fighters to ignore mirror images and displacement...

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Come to think of it, I'd also like a feat that would allow fighters to ignore mirror images and displacement...

Can we call it "Eye of the Tiger"? Please? Pretty please?


houstonderek wrote:
Can we call it "Eye of the Tiger"? Please? Pretty please?

Only if you promise to name your fighter Dave Bickler.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Can we call it "Eye of the Tiger"? Please? Pretty please?
Only if you promise to name your fighter Dave Bickler.

OK.


houstonderek wrote:
OK.

You're a Real Man of Genius, Derek!

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
OK.
You're a Real Man of Genius, Derek!

I wonder how many people know it's the same guy ;)

51 to 66 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Design Forums / Skills and Feats / Feats-Step Up All Messageboards
Recent threads in Skills and Feats