|
The Step Up feat is somewhat ambiguous in its wording. It states "When a foe takes a 5ft step away from you". Does that have to be to an unadjacent square? The obvious use for Step Up is to close with casters or ranged attackers that move back to blast you, but the feat could also prove useful when fighting rogues to stay out of flanking if you were allowed to take a 5ft step when an adjacent for takes a 5ft step.
|
|
If you think about combat abstractly vs on a tactical map, you are coordinating your movement with theirs, mirroring them. Should it matter whether they move "away" from you and really if they move to the side they have moved "away" from you. I think a good perspective would be dancers - when one moves the other follows to keep their steps in coordination.
Well, you asked it in the rules forum. So just what is written. There is no thinking about it abstractly, comparing to dancers, mirroring side steps, etc... That makes it a no.
But you could always discuss it with your GM as a house rule interpretation.
I probably would not allow it, because I think the feat is already pretty dang powerful. But I might allow another feat that has Step-Up as a prerequisite.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you think about combat abstractly vs on a tactical map, you are coordinating your movement with theirs, mirroring them. Should it matter whether they move "away" from you and really if they move to the side they have moved "away" from you. I think a good perspective would be dancers - when one moves the other follows to keep their steps in coordination.
Excellent point, but I think the ruling still stands. Away is actually defined in pathfinder (it comes up with things like fear). The dude has to end up farther away from you than he started. I guess the 'step up' training is to watch for enemies backing up, and you don't care if they are circling you. On the mechanical side if things, taking a step every time someone else takes a step would be very powerful, as it would make escaping from flanking about 3 times as hard.
Excellent point, but I think the ruling still stands. Away is actually defined in pathfinder (it comes up with things like fear). The dude has to end up farther away from you than he started. I guess the 'step up' training is to watch for enemies backing up, and you don't care if they are circling you. On the mechanical side if things, taking a step every time someone else takes a step would be very powerful, as it would make escaping from flanking about 3 times as hard.
*Casts Raise Dead on thread* I know this is a dead thread, but might anyone a reference to Vamp's AWAY definition?
I'm telling with step up in one of my games right now and want to be able to show a PC exactly where this is. Thanks in advance.
Excellent point, but I think the ruling still stands. Away is actually defined in pathfinder (it comes up with things like fear). The dude has to end up farther away from you than he started. I guess the 'step up' training is to watch for enemies backing up, and you don't care if they are circling you. On the mechanical side if things, taking a step every time someone else takes a step would be very powerful, as it would make escaping from flanking about 3 times as hard.*Casts Raise Dead on thread* I know this is a dead thread, but might anyone a reference to Vamp's AWAY definition?
I'm telling with step up in one of my games right now and want to be able to show a PC exactly where this is. Thanks in advance.
As far as I am can tell Vamp is incorrect, 'away' isn't defined in game*, but I'm not sure that matters. I'd be asking anyone to point me to a definition of "move away" that is consistent with remaining adjacent. Without an in-game definition the normal English definition of the phrase applies and that pretty much excludes remaining adjacent. The OPs assertion that it is ambiguous is insupportable.
*frightened uses the term flee which is usually defined as "run away" - close enough.