|
dropping prone has no restriction on if you moved before it is done.
You can easily do two move actions then drop prone as well. I fail to see how it's a relevant point?
You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.
The simplest move action is moving your speed. If you take this kind of move action during your turn, you can't also take a 5-foot step.
You could just as easily (if you have the appropriate ability) 5ft step as part of your crawl, then stand up. 5ft step is prohibited if you have performed any movement.
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 that you move any distance
regardless of it saying rounds, you have to go with an order of operations.
Move requires you to not have 5ft step and 5ft step requires you to not have moved prior.
If you do either one first, the other is automatically excluded. However other forms of movement are not excluded, teleporting, standing/dropping prone.
Just because something is valid in one order of occurence doesn't make it valid in the reverse.
dropping prone has no restriction on if you moved before it is done.
You can easily do two move actions then drop prone as well. I fail to see how it's a relevant point?
You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.The simplest move action is moving your speed. If you take this kind of move action during your turn, you can't also take a 5-foot step.You could just as easily (if you have the appropriate ability) 5ft step as part of your crawl, then stand up. 5ft step is prohibited if you have performed any movement.
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 that you move any distanceregardless of it saying rounds, you have to go with an order of operations.
Move requires you to not have 5ft step and 5ft step requires you to not have moved prior.
If you do either one first, the other is automatically excluded. However other forms of movement are not excluded, teleporting, standing/dropping prone.
Just because something is valid in one order of occurence doesn't make it valid in the reverse.
Move requires you to not have 5ft step and 5ft step requires you to not have moved prior.
If you do either one first, the other is automatically excluded. However other forms of movement are not excluded, teleporting, /dropping prone.
These are your words. Heed them.
|
|
yes those are my words... so are you endorsing them or just reminding me of the stance I've had this entire time that standing/dropping prone is movement? And that you can't take a 5ft step if you have done any movement?
If you're reminding me of a stance I've consistantly maintainted throughout this thread, that seems odd. So I'm assuming you must of bolded what you did because you agree it's movement.
yes those are my words... so are you endorsing them or just reminding me of the stance I've had this entire time that standing/dropping prone is movement? And that you can't take a 5ft step if you have done any movement?
If you're reminding me of a stance I've consistantly maintainted throughout this thread, that seems odd. So I'm assuming you must of bolded what you did because you agree it's movement.
Maybe you didn't read what you actually said. But you said that (1) someone can make a 5ft step and then stand afterward (presumably having dropped prone in between). (2) You said that exclusionary movement cannot take place either before or after the 5ft step.
Using standard logic we get (a) standing may occur after a 5ft step, and (b) exclusionary movement cannot take place either before or after a 5ft step, therefore (c) standing is not an exclusionary movement with regard to the 5ft step.
I agree with you, I just don't think you agree with you.
|
That's some high quality stubborn right there. :)
Nah, that is some low quality stubborn right there.
I can understand arguing a standpoint that can be back up, but lantzkev chooses to ignore areas of the rules that have been quoted and then spouts that 'no evidence has been given'. It is not worth the time to try and convince someone like that.
How is this argument still ongoing? Even the post from the dude who (I assume) was originally arguing you can't stand and 5ft step is now arguing you can? So confused..
How is this argument still ongoing? Even the post from the dude who (I assume) was originally arguing you can't stand and 5ft step is now arguing you can? So confused..
I really feel like William Shatner is about to tell me that there is something on the wing.
So the question is answered in 3.5 and thus answered in Patherfinder as there's no overriding rules.
You know a question doesn't need FAQ'd when only 3 people click the FAQ request. Now Overrun, now there's an item that needed FAQ'd in 3.5 (maybe 3.0 even), let alone Pathfinder.
|
|
If you do either one first, the other is automatically excluded. However other forms of movement are not excluded, teleporting, standing/dropping prone.
No where do I say you can move then 5ft step? check yourself son.
Even the post from the dude who (I assume) was originally arguing you can't stand and 5ft step is now arguing you can?
go re-read things.
"if you do either one first the other is automatically excluded" refers to the prior mentioned movement or 5ft step which specicially exclude each other from being performed if you have done either one.
5ft step specifically says you can't do it if you have moved at all (not will move at all) so you can 5ft step and then do any movement that's not restricted specifically.
ie how you can't perform a move if you've 5ft stepped.
prone/stand up are not precluded from being done if you've moved prior, like wise neither is reloading/sheathing etc.
|
|
So the question is answered in 3.5 and thus answered in Patherfinder as there's no overriding rules.
This is not an answer. Also your link is to a poster of pathfinder what's the relevance there?
You know a question doesn't need FAQ'd when only 3 people click the FAQ request. Now Overrun, now there's an item that needed FAQ'd in 3.5 (maybe 3.0 even), let alone Pathfinder.
number of faq clicks is not an indicator of need of an FAQ. You should know this if you've seen what's been FAQ'd with little to no clicks, and what hasn't with hundreds of clicks...
Do you have anything to contribute other than the only point others have of "a different RPG system that this one is based on said you could so you can"?
If you do either one first, the other is automatically excluded. However other forms of movement are not excluded, teleporting, standing/dropping prone.No where do I say you can move then 5ft step? check yourself son.
Even the post from the dude who (I assume) was originally arguing you can't stand and 5ft step is now arguing you can?go re-read things.
"if you do either one first the other is automatically excluded" refers to the prior mentioned movement or 5ft step which specicially exclude each other from being performed if you have done either one.
5ft step specifically says you can't do it if you have moved at all (not will move at all) so you can 5ft step and then do any movement that's not restricted specifically.
ie how you can't perform a move if you've 5ft stepped.
prone/stand up are not precluded from being done if you've moved prior, like wise neither is reloading/sheathing etc.
So you are suggesting that the movement/5ft interaction rule is separate from the 5ft/no movement rule?
Also your link is to a poster of pathfinder what's the relevance there?
You mean the PATHFINDER poster that says "3.5 SURVIVES 3.5 THRIVES"? That poster? You don't understand the relevance of Paizo telling you that 3.5 is still available to play and it is called PATHFINDER?
|
Very late to this discussion, and I agree with the majority of the posters here that the intent is reasonably clear. Further, 3.5 rules are a good indication of intent, unless it is something which has been clearly changed.
I'd also point out that the Glossary clearly spells out that standing from prone is a "move-equivalent action", as opposed to a "move action"
But this caught my eye:
In summary, yes you can stand and take a 5 foot step. Or if you have a belt of the weasel, you can do a 5 foot crawl and then stand.
Anachrony, a 5 foot crawl is a move action which provokes, so that is not a very effective weasel ;)
Did you just say you can 5ft step and then still move? Just want to be sure since you seem to be saying some rather contradictory things whether you mean to or not. Also, I see you have chosen to ignore my posts so far...
|
|
I'd also point out that the Glossary clearly spells out that standing from prone is a "move-equivalent action", as opposed to a "move action"
yeah I brought up that this is the closest the book comes to saying one way or the other.
A new RPG? Why not just stick with 3.5?
In a sense, that's exactly what we are doing. All Pathfinder products will be written for the 3.5 rules set until August 2009, at which point new releases will transition to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game rules. That means that Legacy of Fire (the current Adventure Path) uses the 3.5 rules, but Council of Thieves (which begins in August, 2009) will use the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Both rules sets are similar enough that conversion between the two will be an easy affair for most Game Masters.
The core rulebooks for the 3.5 rules system are already out of print, and we feel it is important to keep a core game available to new players. Plus, as great as 3.5 is, there remains room for improvement. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game enjoyed a year of open, public playtesting, making it the most robustly playtested game in the history of tabletop RPGs! We're sure you will find many of the changes intriguing and worth consideration for your campaign.
One can assume that if something was added or removed, it was for the sake of "improving" the game... or if we're cynical, that it was simply space constrainted, editing errors, or other human reasons unrelated to a vision of changing some 3.5 rules.
The reference point people bring up to prove their point of Tordek taking steps etc... could of directly been ported over with a "Valeros taking steps etc..."
|
|
Did you just say you can 5ft step and then still move?
I said you could 5ft step and then perform any movement that wasn't restricted by prior movement or 5ft steps... which is essentially just the move action along with charge and a few others spelled out, can't be performed after a 5ft step
I didn't address your point specifically because I didn't feel it added anything that wasn't stated by prior posters and addressed already. IE that prone is a condition and that standing up is movement not "counted" in the gamm is not indicated anywhere in the book.
There is no directive that movement should only be counted in terms of tacticle, overland, and exploratory.
I'd also point out that the Glossary clearly spells out that standing from prone is a "move-equivalent action", as opposed to a "move action"yeah I brought up that this is the closest the book comes to saying one way or the other.
** spoiler omitted **
One can assume that if something was added or removed, it was for the sake of "improving" the game... or if we're cynical, that it was simply space constrainted, editing errors, or other human reasons unrelated to a vision of changing some 3.5 rules.
The reference point people bring up to prove their point of Tordek taking steps etc... could of directly been ported over with a "Valeros taking steps etc..."
No, it could not have. Paizo did not 'port' the 3.5 players guide and dungeon master's guide. That would have been copyright infringement. They did adapt the 3.5 System Reference Document (which was scrubbed of IP by Wizards) which has exactly the same text as the Pathfinder CRB.
You really are just looking for excuses to remain obstinate at this point.
|
|
You think it's obstinate that I want an answer from the rulebooks I've purchased and not from a different rule book/system entirely?
When I ask A question about pathfinder in this forum, if the answer comes from somewhere other than pathfinder or a pathfinder representative, it's not relevant one bit.
|
|
My contention is that when you stand, you're moving your whole freaking body. From a horizontal to a standing position. This is movement.
And this contention is just plain wrong.
Care to site something? The book says nothing on this matter, and the real world says that is movement.
There you are: The thing, in Pathfinder, that absolutely and unequivocally distinguishes between move actions which prohibit a 5-foot step, and move actions which allow it.
Don't paraphrase, quote it then... you have no quotes. Stop arguing with me with quotes from a different game (even if this game is based on it) and don't tell me what you think it says, provide a quote.
I've done you and everyone else the courtesy of providing quotes, unfortunately all I've got in reply are quotes from DnD, and a few inferences. My inference of movement from the mythic book interestingly enough didn't warrant a comment one way or the other even though it's one of the most telling points and the move-equivelant point of standing up.
|
@lantzkev: what you're asking us to believe is:-
• that the Pathfinder devs saw the rule
If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.
...along with the explanation...
For example, if Tordek was on the ground he could stand up (move action), move 5 feet (a 5-foot step), and attack.
• after seeing this in the PHB, they decided to deliberately change this in their new Pathfinder game so that standing up prevents a 5-foot step (for some reason)
• and to make it perfectly clear that the rule has changed, they left the wording of the rule exactly the same!
|
|
Who knows?
That's kind of the point of this.
Insisting people not only be familiar with the 4 core pathfinder books, but also be familiar a book from a different publisher, from a prior edition to understand what they can or can't do while 5ft stepping seems pretty silly.
If you're going to insist on debating this and relying on DnD 3.5 or later... please don't bother with this debate. It has no merit.
|
|
You can take a move action in place of a standard action. If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.
Its interesting that in the combat section, standing up is listed as a move action not a move equivilant.
But wait you say! the Glossary says move equivilent...
Let's read about AoOs first.
Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.
Then we go to the glossary of prone...
Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
So we have one area of the book that says it's a move action, and then another that says it's equivelant to moving for AoO.
Even with your perspective of movement only means actual distance, we realise that standing up is a special form of movement at this point.
So all they do is phrase it as a restriction; if you take the "move" kind of move action, then you cannot take a 5-foot step. Otherwise you moved no actual distance and you can.
I'd argue that the language its self about "you cannot take a 5ft step when you move" was unnecessary language because of the language of 5ft step precluding its use with any movement that turn.
In specific lets look at this ability.
Dimensional Agility
Teleportation does not faze you.
Prerequisites: Ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door.
Benefit: After using abundant step or casting dimension door, you can take any actions you still have remaining on your turn.
It has no restriction on 5ft step, so should I assume that I can 5ft step when I use Dimension Door? After all, I haven't used a "move" move... and I have a swift, move, and free actions available now.
If your answer is anything other than "of course not because you've moved" you've already proven that it's unnecessary language and that the 5ft step language is all you need to know if you can do it or not. Not an ability telling you "you can't 5ft step" after doing this.
|
|
And your attempt to reinterpret dimensional agility is just getting silly.
So your contention is that you can use a 5ft step after using Dimension door with that feat? I find it amusing that you acknowledge this question, but promptly ignore it and dismiss it without addressing anything related to it or why you are dismissing it.
|
|
Who knows?
That's kind of the point of this.
Insisting people not only be familiar with the 4 core pathfinder books, but also be familiar a book from a different publisher, from a prior edition to understand what they can or can't do while 5ft stepping seems pretty silly.
If you're going to insist on debating this and relying on DnD 3.5 or later... please don't bother with this debate. It has no merit.
Then let me point out the merit...
When the rule was originally written in the 3.0 PHB (and re-written in the 3.5 PHB), the wording was, 'If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.'
What those words meant was (amongst other things), 'For example, if Tordek was on the ground he could stand up (move action), move 5 feet (a 5-foot step), and attack.'
So, when the words, 'If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action' are used in the Pathfinder CRB, those words mean what they mean, what they always meant. Those words didn't change what they mean in any way.
Therefore, in Pathfinder, the rule which says, 'If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action' means that you can stand up (a move action), move 5 feet (a 5-foot step), and take a standard action (or another move action), as long as you don't move any distance with the latter because the 5-foot step you took precludes moving any distance.
You are asking us to believe that the Pathfinder devs deliberately changed the rule, and that the tool they chose to change it was to leave the wording exactly the same, and that is simply not credible.
|
|
You can take a move action in place of a standard action. If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move action for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action.Its interesting that in the combat section, standing up is listed as a move action not a move equivilant.
But wait you say! the Glossary says move equivilent...
Let's read about AoOs first.
Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot step and the withdraw action.Then we go to the glossary of prone...
Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.So we have one area of the book that says it's a move action, and then another that says it's equivelant to moving for AoO.
Even with your perspective of movement only means actual distance, we realise that standing up is a special form of movement at this point.
So all they do is phrase it as a restriction; if you take the "move" kind of move action, then you cannot take a 5-foot step. Otherwise you moved no actual distance and you can.I'd argue that the language its self about "you cannot take a 5ft step when you move" was unnecessary language because of the language of 5ft step precluding its use with any movement that turn.
In specific lets look at this ability.
Dimensional Agility
Teleportation does not faze you.
Prerequisites: Ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door.
Benefit: After using abundant step or casting dimension door, you can take any actions you still have remaining on your turn.It has no restriction on 5ft step, so should I assume that I can 5ft step when I use Dimension Door? After all, I haven't used a "move" move... and I have a swift, move, and free actions available
...
Whether it says "Move-equivalent Action" or "Move Action" is only relevant as far as the fact that it appears that you are getting terms confused.
According to the Combat chapter, a player may do a Standard Action and a Move Action (as well as other stuff that isn't relevant to this conversation).
The Move Action consists of the following possible actions: Move, Direct or Redirect a Spell, Draw or Sheathe a Weapon, Manipulate an Item, Mount/Dismount a Steed, Ready or Drop a Shield, or Stand Up.
Stand Up is wholly separate from Move. Just because Stand Up is a "Move Action", that does not mean that it is the Move "Move Action".
The description for the 5-ft. step says you can't take one if you perform any other type of movement. Within the context of the rules, this is in reference to the various modes of movement made with the Move "Move Action": climbing, swimming, flying, etc.
So, yes, while you are literally "moving" when you stand up, you are not performing the Move "Move Action". Thus, you may 5-ft. step when you stand up.
Standing up is a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity.So we have one area of the book that says it's a move action, and then another that says it's equivelant to moving for AoO.
Even with your perspective of movement only means actual distance, we realise that standing up is a special form of movement at this point.
So is retrieving or storing an item.
Picking up an item off the ground.
Sheathing a weapon.
Redirecting a spell.
Loading a hand crossbow or light crossbow.
The fact that standing up from prone provokes isn't anything special or unique.
Everyone of these is a move action that provokes. What in stand up from prone makes it different from any of these? (And I mean what in the rules makes it distinct)?
I think he's trying to argue that "move-equivalent" means "equivalent to moving and thus counts as a kind of movement", but this is inconsistent with the rules as a whole.
The key points are that there's two places where we get descriptions of the limit on five-foot steps. One is the place where we're told they can't be used if you move any distance, and the other is in the list of move actions, where only the "Move" action says it prevents 5-foot steps.
Steady Aim (Ex): At 1st level, as long as a musket master has at least 1 grit point, she can take a move-equivalent action to increase the accuracy of a two-handed firearm. When she does, she increases the range increment of the firearm she is firing by 10 feet. This stacks with other abilities that increase her range increment. This deed replaces the gunslinger's dodge deed.
Shadow Blend (Su) During any conditions other than bright light, a shadow demon can disappear into the shadows as a move-equivalent action, effectively becoming invisible. Artificial illumination or light spells of 2nd level or lower do not negate this ability.
Change Shape (Su) All lycanthropes have three forms—a humanoid form, an animal form, and a hybrid form. Equipment does not meld with the new form between humanoid and hybrid form, but does between those forms and animal form. A natural lycanthrope can shift to any of its three alternate forms as a move-equivalent action.
A typical derro fights with a short sword or a repeating light crossbow with plenty of poison bolts. Some derros also carry an aklys—a hooked throwing club attached to a 20-foot- long cord. This cord limits the club's range, but allows the derro to retrieve it as a move-equivalent action after it has been thrown.
I wonder if he'd consider any of these "move-equivalent" actions as being something that requires you to move using your whole body, then. It would seem odd to me to disallow a Shadow Demon from taking a 5' step simply because it blended in with the shadows to become invisible without actually going anywhere. Or when a Musket Master aims really hard, without travelling any kind of distance or using any actual (real world) movement at all.
You think it's obstinate that I want an answer from the rulebooks I've purchased and not from a different rule book/system entirely?
When I ask A question about pathfinder in this forum, if the answer comes from somewhere other than pathfinder or a pathfinder representative, it's not relevant one bit.
You have been given an answer from the rulebooks and then promptly stuck your fingers in your ears and ignored it. The books clearly define what is and is not considered movement and I posted every time it mentions movement.
A few of the arguments you have made:
1) Standing from prone involves moving your entire body. So does picking something up off of the ground but you can still 5' step after picking up an object. There are lots of things in the game that involve moving your entire body without changing squares.
2) It was pointed out that your body is in some form of movement and your response was that the poster had taken your argument to absurd levels. Well, yes, that is called a reductio ad absurdum which is a valid form of argumentation. Simply pointing out that he successfully used such an argument is not an answer for it.
3) You have argued that in the real world standing from prone is considered movement. You have offered no evidence that the same is true with respect to the rules other than to repeat it over and over again.
You have been shown that each type of move action that actually constitutes movement actually references movement and explicitly states it denies a 5' step. You have been shown that standing/dropping prone contains no reference to movement and does not say anything about taking a 5' step unlike every other single movement related move action in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This.
Thread.
Is.
AWESOME.
|
|
So. Can we leave the the op with the comment:
If it isn't clear 100% in the rules, then its up to the GM to interpret the rule. Therefore expect table variation.
Just because almost 100% of other GMs will interpret it different from him, doesn't mean we can't put this discussion to rest by invoking table variation.
|
|
What in stand up from prone makes it different from any of these? (And I mean what in the rules makes it distinct)?
The English language tells us a change of position is movement, ie prone to sitting to standing to supine etc.
So. Can we leave the the op with the comment:
If it isn't clear 100% in the rules, then its up to the GM to interpret the rule. Therefore expect table variation.
Just because almost 100% of other GMs will interpret it different from him, doesn't mean we can't put this discussion to rest by invoking table variation.
that's never an appropriate answer to any rule discussion here.
The description for the 5-ft. step says you can't take one if you perform any other type of movement. Within the context of the rules, this is in reference to the various modes of movement made with the Move "Move Action": climbing, swimming, flying, etc.
Any other type of movement is never described in an absolute term. Likewise I still see everyone dancing around the dimension agility and being able to 5ft step afterward. I'm assuming it's because everyone of you realize that regardless of how you personally are defining movement, it is movement and prevents you from 5ft stepping afterwards, even though it contains no restriction against 5ft stepping afterwards.
So the whole argument of only movement that conflicts with 5ft stepping calls it out in its text is inherently flawed.
Lastly reducing an argument to an absurd level does not make it always a valid argument. In particularly since I clearly defined the limits, taking it past those limits is not arguing anymore it's just masturbation.
|
|
3) You have argued that in the real world standing from prone is considered movement. You have offered no evidence that the same is true with respect to the rules other than to repeat it over and over again.
The game is based to model its self somewhat after our world. It uses our language as its base to convey that. The book does not need to define movement unless it wants to create a distinction different than the norms of society.
So we look and see there is no definition of movement, so we must assume that our understanding of movement in the real world translates just fine. If it doesn't it would have to include an example to show how it works differently. IE the old tordek example.
In a similar vein we have many concepts not defined because our understanding of it outside of the rulebook is adequate to understand what it is that's being done. Things like smelling, tasting, drinking, et al, do not need "defined" unless they want them to mean something different than they do in the real world.
There is no need to prove that a change in position which is movement in the real world is movement in the game. There is only the need to prove that it isn't considered movement in the game, to wit no one has done so except in the example of tordek which is not in the Pathfinder game.
At the risk of becoming embroiled in an argument I have no interest in being part of, I would like to step back from the actual discussion and ask a question, lantzkev:
What's your endgame, here?
Let me clarify:
Take the hypothetical but highly likely situation that you don't get a developer weighing in or a FAQ entry. People have explained their position to you, and you have rejected their arguments for a variety of reasons. It's mostly clear that nothing that people can come up with is going to satisfy the burden of proof you're looking for, because they've been trying unsuccessfully for 140 posts. I also find it unlikely that you're going to convince others of the validity of your argument, as you've made, clarified, and repeated your arguments a number of times throughout those same 140 posts.
It seems to me that nothing short of the aforementioned dev interaction or FAQ entry, you're not going to be satisfied. So what's the point in continuing the argument? If you don't get that, what can you possibly take out of this discussion that you haven't already gotten?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, in case anyone in the future comes in here looking for the answer to the question asked in the OP:
Yes, you can stand from prone and 5 ft step in the same round.
A unicorn may make some posts after this post. Just ignore the unicorn. Unicorns can't read well.
At this point I recommend everyone just stop posting in this thread.
What in stand up from prone makes it different from any of these? (And I mean what in the rules makes it distinct)?The English language tells us a change of position is movement, ie prone to sitting to standing to supine etc.
Using that as the basis, how is standing up different than any of these?
So is retrieving or storing an item.Picking up an item off the ground.
Sheathing a weapon.
Redirecting a spell.
Loading a hand crossbow or light crossbow.
All of these require movement per the common English language.
So answer the question again, this time without ignoring my parenthetical question.
(And I mean what in the rules makes it distinct)?
If you can't make a rules distinction between standing up and why it prevents a 5' step and why all the others allow it...
3) You have argued that in the real world standing from prone is considered movement. You have offered no evidence that the same is true with respect to the rules other than to repeat it over and over again.The game is based to model its self somewhat after our world. It uses our language as its base to convey that. The book does not need to define movement unless it wants to create a distinction different than the norms of society.
So we look and see there is no definition of movement, so we must assume that our understanding of movement in the real world translates just fine. If it doesn't it would have to include an example to show how it works differently. IE the old tordek example.
In a similar vein we have many concepts not defined because our understanding of it outside of the rulebook is adequate to understand what it is that's being done. Things like smelling, tasting, drinking, et al, do not need "defined" unless they want them to mean something different than they do in the real world.
There is no need to prove that a change in position which is movement in the real world is movement in the game. There is only the need to prove that it isn't considered movement in the game, to wit no one has done so except in the example of tordek which is not in the Pathfinder game.
And by your same ridiculous pedantic argument regarding movement, readying or dropping a shield requires movement. So you cannot ready a shield or drop a shield in the same round you take a 5' step. You also can't draw a potion from a pack. Nor can you manipulate any other items. All because they involve the real world definition of movement.
But let's look at the real world definition of "movement".
"An act of changing physical location or position or having this changed".
Either everybody in this thread but you is correct and Pathfinder intended to limit this to changing physical location, and indicated this by the language that has been quoted ad nauseum. Or you are correct and then quite literally everything physical you do in the game qualifies as a movement. Because you are necessarily changing position any time you move a limb or twitch an eye or shift a body part. So sheathing a weapon is movement. Drawing a potion is movement. Readying your shield is movement. Drinking a potion as an accelerated drinker is movement.
Your position is, simply put, ridiculous. Despite your protestations otherwise, there is clear indication even in just the PF rules that by "movement" they meant only moving a physical distance, not merely moving a body part. Your position is baseless. It's been demonstrated to be so in pretty much every response you've gotten. You are going to have to accept, at some point, that when it comes to this issue, you are simply incorrect. Ultimately, you would like the issue to be spelled out more clearly. That you will not get. It is spelled out well enough. That they do not spell out every little issue with precise and unambiguous clarity does not mean that all these issues are necessarily nebulous and uninterpretable. You need to give this up.
|
|
And by your same ridiculous pedantic argument regarding movement, readying or dropping a shield requires movement.
I've quite clearly stated that changing your position from one position to another is the furthest I would declare movement. Unlike the others here I'm not making a distinction on the action type taken that caused that movement, merely that you have moved and thus cannot 5ft step.
, there is clear indication even in just the PF rules that by "movement" they meant only moving a physical distance, not merely moving a body part.
I understand that completely, it's interesting you keep going to parts of a body moving rather than the whole body, which I have repeatedly and clearly stated is not what I'm talking about, and that I'm including a complete move of the body's orientation.
It's been demonstrated to be so in pretty much every response you've gotten.
No it has not, it's been amply demonstrated that in 3.5 there was an example that made it clear you could perform a 5ft step after standing up despite that being considered movement in any rational sense of the word movement and that the restriction on movement bmust then be in regards to distance moved in squares etc...
Which is why the 5-foot step rules refer to "moving any distance", and don't, say, claim that you must not move your arms.
You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement.
The 5ft step makes no mention to DISTANCE as is the key to your argument, but movement. A definition of which fretgod99 has already provided and most literate readers already are aware of.
The entire basis of your claim here is that "stand up" is a "move action". Nothing which isn't a move action is even remotely related.
You must clearly not be reading what I'm saying let me re-summarize for you.
you may not 5ft step when you perform ANY KIND OF MOVEMENT. Regardless of the action taken, standing up from a prone position is "changing your position" and is an form of movement.
If we accept that we can 5ft step except where excluded from it, ie how charging, moving your speed, etc all say "you may not also 5ft step" then that means that after you use dimension door with dimensional agility, you can then promptly 5ft step if you wish.
We know that cannot be true because as 5ft step says, you cannot do it when you move. So the exceptions listed with movement and charge are unnecessary.
So, just so I'm clear, your argument is that a character cannot do the following:
Make a full attack, during which he takes a 5-foot step, and then drop prone.
I know you knocked this line of reasoning earlier, but you are currently contending that it is not the use of a move action that prevents a 5-foot step, but instead it is the movement of the whole body that prevents it. You need to demonstrate that dropping prone isn't whole body movement to support your position.
Good luck.