|
You can move 5 feet in any round when you don't perform any other kind of movement.
That quote doesn't make this quote disappear:-
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.
And when it says, 'any other kind of movement', it means:-
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.
Many nonstandard modes of movement are covered under this category, including climbing (up to one-quarter of your speed) and swimming (up to one-quarter of your speed).
All these are variations on moving your speed, whether by walking, climbing, swimming, flying, running, withdrawing, crawling, charging....any way you move from square to square, using up your movement (typically 30-feet/6 squares as a 'walk'). These are the 'other kinds of movement' your quote refers to.
Using a standard action to cast a dimension door is not movement; you simply disappear and re-appear somewhere else without ever moving between the start and end points. Thus you can 5-foot step in the same round that you teleport in any way, because teleporting is not movement.
At this point, you know very well that the guy who wrote the rule in question specifically allowed a 5-foot step with standing up because that was the example he used.
You also know that the writers of Pathfinder knew this, and left the wording of that rule unchanged, which they would not have done if they wanted to change that rule (for some unfathomable reason).
What you are asking us to believe is simply not credible.
|
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.
I'd argue you could do that because you haven't moved when you take the 5ft step, and dropping prone has no restriction on prior movement.
This is identical to my earlier mention of being able to 5ft step while prone and then stand up. Dropping prone or standing up from prone have no riders prohibiting them from happening if you have moved already.
All these are variations on moving your speed, whether by walking, climbing, swimming, flying, running, withdrawing, crawling, charging....any way you move from square to square, using up your movement (typically 30-feet/6 squares as a 'walk'). These are the 'other kinds of movement' your quote refers to.
So can you 5ft step with dimensional agility after using dimension door?
5-foot step doesn't care about the order of actions. Taking a 5-foot step prohibits other kinds of movement, in the same way that other kinds of movement prohibit 5-foot steps.
Thus, if dropping prone is the same kind of "whole body movement" as standing up from prone, regardless of the action type involved, and if standing up from prone prohibits a 5-foot step because it is movement, then taking a 5-foot step prohibits dropping prone because dropping prone is movement.
Yes.
Use "move action" to stand up.
Use free action to five foot step.
Use standard action to smack someone in the head.
Chemlak is correct in his logic, and it is the trap that shows the interpretation that you cannot stand up and take a 5' step is incorrect.
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.
Except you have no logical basis for not declaring it movement. You are arguing from what real world people would consider movement and real world people would say you have engaged in movement because you bent over and picked something up. You are setting an arbitrary standard.
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.
The game does not differentiate between moving body parts and moving the whole body. That concept is contained nowhere in the rules. Is there a movement related concept in the game in which there is a clear difference stated? Yes! The difference between leaving a square or not leaving a square. So either you have to argue that what constitutes movement is entirely up to GM discretion or accept that movement in the game is defined by changing squares.
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...
I have given you example after example and you have never rebutted a single one with any type of evidence other than to say that "well in the real world people don't think that way." When the rules contradict reality the rules are the rules.
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.
Wrong again! PRD 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 that you move any distance. It does mention distance. That has been pointed out numerous times. I have quoted that same text and bolded the part about distance multiple times.
You apparently aren't even reading the rules quotes we are providing. That is further evidence that you are being unreasonably stubborn and not actually considering the arguments if after all this time you still don't know what the text actually says.
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.
Except for that is question begging (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question). Your argument just assumes your position to be true and presents it as fact. PROVE that standing from prone is considered movement. You have not done so and as the one making the claim the burden of proof lies with you to prove it.
Please actually go through and read the actual texts of all of the move actions. You will see several that actually mention movement. Every single time that movement is defined in terms of how many feet or squares. Every single time a move action references movement it explicitly states a 5' step cannot be taken.
Unless you can provide a logical explanation for why standing from prone is an exception to the above you have absolutely no leg to stand on.
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...
Ultimately, you're complaining that the rule in PF doesn't use the entire real world definition of movement. Then, in your defense of that position, you refuse to apply the entire real world definition of movement and all its resultant consequences to your own position.
Pot, I'd like you to meet my friend Kettle. Kettle, Pot.
Seriously guys, the unicorn is trolling. Just stop posting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Pathfinder, the archer who repeatedly steps 5 feet away from a fighter gets to fire just as many arrows as his foe gets to punch him.
The 5-foot step is inherently really weird and nonsensical. There's a spell that lets a spellcaster 5-foot step twice, implying it's not about the distance of movement at all but the inherent type of motion.
If I'm a gnome monk flanked by two goblins with daggers, and I flurry, I can attack both of them. a gnome's armspan is in no way the 10-15 feet I'd need to reach both squares. Therefor I have to assume the gnome is moving his body to make both attacks. He may not be leaving his square, but he's certainly moving by necessity. Probably as much as 5 ft. Can he five foot step after this?
I'm a colossal titan, and I'm fighting an ant. I can attack two times because of my sword and two slams. The ant also can because it has a bite and a slam or something. I can full attack if I move 5 feet but not if I move 10. I'm 100 ft tall, and stepping only 5 would look look really silly. The ant actually has this same restriction of 5 ft, but it takes the ant 20 seconds just to make that 5 ft. of movement, the equivalent of 3 rounds.
The 5-foot step is a tactical idea, and not a logical combat thing. It's designed to give ranged attackers and spellcasters a way out of the reach of the melee types, allow melee types to gain limited mobility while still dealing optimal damage, and make flanking and maneuvering around obstacles more ideal.
There will never be a real agreement on this argument in anything but RAW because the 5-foot step is nonsense.