Does taking a 5 ft step chew up a move action?

[doc the grey]

The title says or all but to elaborate I have a player who had our in his head that a 5 ft step somehow does not cost an action. If anyone knows the answer to this and can find a link to the ruling or would be greatly appreciated.

[ryric]

Your player is correct. A five foot step is not an action. If you look at the table of actions in the combat chapter 5 foot step is listed under "no action."

The only thing taking a 5 foot step prevents you from doing is using your move action to actually move distance - you can still use it to draw a weapon, stand from prone, direct a spell, etc.

[BigDTBone]

Your player is correct, here is the relevant rule 5-ft step is actually a "not-an-action" in that it doesn't use any time at all and it isn't classified as a free action. It does have some special rules about when you can use it but doing so doesn't cost you any other actions.

Edit: ninja got me!

[KainPen]

yes and no.

if you take a 5ft step you cannot move any more. but you can however preform other move action that does not require you to move anymore, such as drink a potion, stand up from prone, draw a weapon.

So if your character is looking to physically move after taking a 5ft step and attacking, no they can't. the other move actions are perfectly valid options.

[Kolokotroni]

Since 5ft step isnt listed under move actions but instead under miscellaneous actions, it doesnt cost a move action. It appears in the table 'Actions in Combat' under No Action.

Quote:

Take 5-Foot Step

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.

You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.

You can only take a 5-foot-step if your movement isn't hampered by difficult terrain or darkness. Any creature with a speed of 5 feet or less can't take a 5-foot step, since moving even 5 feet requires a move action for such a slow creature.

You may not take a 5-foot step using a form of movement for which you do not have a listed speed.

So you can take a 5 foot step during your turn so long as you dont move. You can take move actions that dont cause movement (draw a weapon, stand up from prone etc) but not any actual movement. You can also take a full round action and a 5 foot step. For instance, a character with 3 attacks in his full attack, and attack, kill something then 5 foot step to something else and continue attacking.

[doc the grey]

G+%$~&mit. This was not one I wanted to eat crow on. Anyways thanks folks happy to hear an answer quickly and sourced. Much love folks

In other news:

Anyone else hate it sometimes when that player who always tries to fight you on the rules and is usually wrong about them finally gets one because you know it's just going to make them drag more stuff back up?

[Rithralas]

Yep. Being a cooperative game, it seems to quickly devolve into a competition when a rules lawyer sits at the table.

[Komoda]

I find that many DMs that complain about rules lawyers are just not all that great a presenting the situation, thereby confusing the rules lawyer with a muddy situation.

[Erick Wilson]

Rithralas wrote:

Yep. Being a cooperative game, it seems to quickly devolve into a competition when a rules lawyer sits at the table.

Um. This is not the sort of issue that should get a player labelled a "rules lawyer." This is a very fundamental, important and frequently employed rule. The entire game plays very differently if 5 foot steps actually use a move action rather than just preventing you from taking additional movement.

God knows, I empathize with those who are frustrated with the rules-intensive nature of 3.5/PF. But I don't think the answer to your problems is to ignore the nature of the beast and then become annoyed at players who know the rules better than you. The answer to your problems is to either learn the rules better or play a different system. There are plenty of them out there for you.

Now, this is not to say that you can't ignore or alter rules if you want to. But you should know them first so that you can present cogent reasons to players who object. Otherwise you'll keep being blindsided and you won't seem to have a good reason for making the change you are making, which will frustrate the player, who has a reasonable expectation of the rules working at least mostly the way they are written.

[Jaçinto]

I get called a rules lawyer myself but the situation is always "Actually, the rule is that works this way, unless you have a house rule or something and that's fine. You're the GM after all."

My GM has a houseruled 5-foot-step rule that I just hate and he knows it, and I have told him what the actual rule is but I don't bring it up anymore. I say if that's how he wants to do the rule, that's fine. His rule is that you always, ALWAYS get a free 5-foot-step as long as you are not paralyzed or something. So he will often have an enemy do a 5 foot back and then a move action to move away again. I have told him this totally ruins anything with reach as it makes it too easy to avoid AoO but again, I dropped it cause it is his game. I just don't use that when I run and instead use the actual rule.

[Kazaan]

Just as is the case with real life lawyers, in regards to rules lawyers, the majority have good intentions and seek a concise, fair, balanced interpretation to the rules that lets players have freedoms to which they are entitled. It's a very small, but highly visible, minority of rules lawyers who seek to exploit loopholes and corner cases and, in general, abuse the spirit of the rules. These kinds also tend to view the game as "Players vs GM" so they consider the GM and, by extension, "his" rules of the game to be an adversary to be overcome and skill in exploiting the rules is viewed as a game skill. So "rules lawyer" shouldn't be considered a pejorative term because most aren't trying to let a murderer walk free; most are trying to keep an innocent man out of jail.

[Tomos]

doc the grey wrote:

**spoiler** Anyone else hate it sometimes when that player who always tries to fight you on the rules and is usually wrong about them finally gets one because you know it's just going to make them drag more stuff back up?

This seems to be more of an issue of civility and good attitudes than 'being right.'

I think that rudeness is really the reason why "rules lawyer" is a pejorative. Normally, it's used interchangeably with "jerk."

I play in a group of rules lawyers (literally) and we have a great time. Part of the fun of this system is pursuing mastery of the system.

As long as the goal is "to get the right answer" and not "to win the argument" everything works out fine.

[Jaçinto]

I would rather play with rules lawyers than munchkins anyway.

[seebs]

I will happily dispute rules, I will also happily allow the GM to make calls even if they are different from the rules. But we have a group where everyone is basically agreed on the goal being to have a fun game.

[doc the grey]

Tomos wrote:

doc the grey wrote:

**spoiler** Anyone else hate it sometimes when that player who always tries to fight you on the rules and is usually wrong about them finally gets one because you know it's just going to make them drag more stuff back up?

This seems to be more of an issue of civility and good attitudes than 'being right.'

I think that rudeness is really the reason why "rules lawyer" is a pejorative. Normally, it's used interchangeably with "jerk."

I play in a group of rules lawyers (literally) and we have a great time. Part of the fun of this system is pursuing mastery of the system.

As long as the goal is "to get the right answer" and not "to win the argument" everything works out fine.

Lol yeah. Note why I didn't use the word rule lawyer. I've had this problem where he fights me over rules he's clearly wrong on in text at table, which causes everyone to have to look it up, show him he's wrong, and have everyone waste 10 mins+ on the whole debate instead of just going with the ruling and tabling it for later (like after game). He still argues with me about viridium and other silly s**& and I am just not a fan of having games devolve into competitive rules debates when I'm trying to keep a tense mood going lol.

Also in my experience the difference between a good rules lawyer and a jerk is one who makes sure that mechanics rules are followed on both sides of the screen.

But yeah my big worry is just whether or not this will start him off on more in game breaks to rules check that eat up more time more often. But se la vi, I got dragon hunts to figure out and trials to block out. Thanks for the words peoples!

[seebs]

That sounds sort of annoying. I'd say you might want to try to establish a protocol for rules questions that lets you all agree to move them outside of the game so they're not a disruption.

[Kolokotroni]

doc the grey wrote:

Tomos wrote:

doc the grey wrote:

**spoiler** Anyone else hate it sometimes when that player who always tries to fight you on the rules and is usually wrong about them finally gets one because you know it's just going to make them drag more stuff back up?

This seems to be more of an issue of civility and good attitudes than 'being right.'

I think that rudeness is really the reason why "rules lawyer" is a pejorative. Normally, it's used interchangeably with "jerk."

I play in a group of rules lawyers (literally) and we have a great time. Part of the fun of this system is pursuing mastery of the system.

As long as the goal is "to get the right answer" and not "to win the argument" everything works out fine.

Lol yeah. Note why I didn't use the word rule lawyer. I've had this problem where he fights me over rules he's clearly wrong on in text at table, which causes everyone to have to look it up, show him he's wrong, and have everyone waste 10 mins+ on the whole debate instead of just going with the ruling and tabling it for later (like after game). He still argues with me about viridium and other silly s@#% and I am just not a fan of having games devolve into competitive rules debates when I'm trying to keep a tense mood going lol.

Also in my experience the difference between a good rules lawyer and a jerk is one who makes sure that mechanics rules are followed on both sides of the screen.

But yeah my big worry is just whether or not this will start him off on more in game breaks to rules check that eat up more time more often. But se la vi, I got dragon hunts to figure out and trials to block out. Thanks for the words peoples!

For something like this I'd say hey, I get where you are coming from, but this is how we are ruling it for now, we'll look it up at the next bathroom/food/smoke break and talk it over then. Rather then stopping the game every time he disagrees with you.