This feat is triggered if an adjacent foe moves away.
Is moving into cover considered "away"?
Thanks
If the distance between you and the foe increases by 5ft/1square, yes.
If the foe is adjacent to you and then moves so that it is no longer adjacent to you, yes.
FYI, you accidentally posted this several times. You might want to delete the extras before the time limit is up.
This feat is triggered if an adjacent foe moves away.
Is moving into cover considered "away"?
Thanks
IMO any 5 foot step that moves an adjacent creature to where it is no longer adjacent is 'away'.
So you could 5 foot step next to a creature your already adjacent to, to move into a flanking position for example.
But if your next to a creature and 5 foot step to any square where your no longer adjacent then your stepping 'away'. I don't see why cover has any impact on this.
I think the question is regarding doorways etc.
Imagine you're standing in a doorway, and your enemy is in front of you (blocking the doorway). The enemy the 5-foot-steps to one side - still adjacent to you (corner to corner), but they now have cover.
Can you use step-up in this scenario?
It's relevant because:
You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.
|
I think the question is regarding doorways etc.
Imagine you're standing in a doorway, and your enemy is in front of you (blocking the doorway). The enemy the 5-foot-steps to one side - still adjacent to you (corner to corner), but they now have cover.
Can you use step-up in this scenario?
It's relevant because:
You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with cover relative to you.
My reply is no, the distance hasn't increased.
You can close the distance when a foe tries to move away.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: Whenever an adjacent foe attempts to take a 5-foot step away from you, you may also make a 5-foot step as an immediate action so long as you end up adjacent to the foe that triggered this ability. If you take this step, you cannot take a 5-foot step during your next turn. If you take an action to move during your next turn, subtract 5 feet from your total movement.
I do think this text is vague enough that it could be argued that you could. Stepping around a corner to escape may not be increasing the distance, but it's movement intended to get "away from you".
I don't think that's conclusive, but I also don't think the other definition is the only viable one.
(Also thanks Diego, even if we disagree I like the way you gave your answer concisely with the reasoning spelled out)
Stepping around a corner to escape may not be increasing the distance, but it's movement intended to get "away from you".
I disagree. It may serve the same purpose, but "putting something between us two" is not the same as "getting away from you". What you're describing is a side-step.
"adjacent foe attempts to take a 5-foot step away from you" to me clearly means moving from an adjacent to a non-adjacent square.
I can see the ambiguity, but it seems like the more literal interpretation is the more likely.
But I'd probably run it otherwise at my table. Step Up is niche enough that I don't want to make it niche-er. If you're trained to keep someone within your reach/prevent them from getting away, you're trained to do so whether they step straight away from you or around a corner. I mean, the distance hasn't increased from square to square but the line of effect sure got longer. I know I've never considered someone directly on the other side of a wall to be "right next to me", and would say that such a person is actually much farther from me than someone in plain sight.
|
|
I can see the ambiguity, but it seems like the more literal interpretation is the more likely.
But I'd probably run it otherwise at my table. Step Up is niche enough that I don't want to make it niche-er. If you're trained to keep someone within your reach/prevent them from getting away, you're trained to do so whether they step straight away from you or around a corner. I mean, the distance hasn't increased from square to square but the line of effect sure got longer. I know I've never considered someone directly on the other side of a wall to be "right next to me", and would say that such a person is actually much farther from me than someone in plain sight.
One of the problems is that it applying it this way it becomes: "Stop people from maneuvering around me".
Does a guy move to flank me? He is stepping away from the previous position, I get a 5' step.A guy moves right or left so that his friend can move forward to engage me? I move forward to "follow" him.
I can see a lot of shenanigans that will net you and your friends a better tactical position if "step up" allow you to take a 5' move every time an opponent takes a 5' move, instead of limiting it to "when the opponent increases the distance".
|
|
If you allow it when the guy isn't moving away from you, you are arguing that it is applicable when the guy isn't increasing the range.
So, now you want to apply a lot of "but only if"?
What if the guy is someone that has "hide in plain sight" and uses the move to get in stealth? Entering stealth will trigger it?
What if he enters deeper darkness? Full concealment. It is really different from getting cover?
He is 2 sizes larger or smaller than you and enters your square. Do you get to take a 5' step?
If you disregard half of the ability text you open a can of worms. And the rules.
The intent of Step-Up is to prevent people being able to 5-foot step out of reach of your AoOs.
It's easy to avoid abuse by wording it like this:
You can close the distance when a foe tries to move away.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: Whenever an adjacent foe attempts to take a 5-foot step out of your threatened area, you may also make a 5-foot step as an immediate action so long as you end up adjacent to the foe that triggered this ability. If you take this step, you cannot take a 5-foot step during your next turn. If you take an action to move during your next turn, subtract 5 feet from your total movement.
Remember there are still times when someone can out-maneuver you. If you're on difficult terrain but they aren't they can 5-foot step away from you. If you're fighting over a low wall (eg. A fence) they can 5-foot step away from you. If you've already used your immediate action they can 5-foot step away from you. If you've already used your AoO(s) they don't need to 5-foot step away from you.
Allowing this option keeps the spirit of the feat, and it's easy to make it non-abusable.
|
|
The intent of Step-Up is to prevent people being able to 5-foot step out of reach of your AoOs.
It's easy to avoid abuse by wording it like this:
You can close the distance when a foe tries to move away.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: Whenever an adjacent foe attempts to take a 5-foot step out of your threatened area, you may also make a 5-foot step as an immediate action so long as you end up adjacent to the foe that triggered this ability. If you take this step, you cannot take a 5-foot step during your next turn. If you take an action to move during your next turn, subtract 5 feet from your total movement.Remember there are still times when someone can out-maneuver you. If you're on difficult terrain but they aren't they can 5-foot step away from you. If you're fighting over a low wall (eg. A fence) they can 5-foot step away from you. If you've already used your immediate action they can 5-foot step away from you. If you've already used your AoO(s) they don't need to 5-foot step away from you.
Allowing this option keeps the spirit of the feat, and it's easy to make it non-abusable.
So, if you have been disarmed you don't get to step up? You don't threaten.
You see the spirit of the feat as "I can maneuvere around you", I see it as "I can keep in contact with you".
Ah, yes. The ol' "if you change it like THIS, then all of THESE bad situations also apply."
Again, by RAW it seems clear enough that you can't.
But in my games? I'll make a ruling one moment, then use an entirely contradictory ruling in the next. It may be inconsistent in terms of what's written in the book, but I've never once had anyone complain that it wasn't consistent in terms of what's fair and reasonable.
So yeah, in my games, Step Up lets you close the *effective* distance between you and an enemy that 5ft-steps around a doorway. And I have 0 problem ruling that no, you can't avoid being flanked or being threatened by multiple opponents, nor can you abuse the feat in any of the other weird ways that may be possible with a less stringent ruling.
If it increases the effective distance between you, go ahead and take that five feet. That's all.
Assuming the intent of the feat is to prevent people from stepping out of combat and casting or shooting without provoking, then it doesn't really need to work if you don't threaten them anymore anyway.
I'd probably go with Quixote's interpretation as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if you have been disarmed you don't get to step up? You don't threaten.
Yup, that seems fine to me. ErichAD basically already said it:
Assuming the intent of the feat is to prevent people from stepping out of combat and casting or shooting without provoking, then it doesn't really need to work if you don't threaten them anymore anyway.
Honestly the chances of this situation coming up are pretty rare, so it's not going to break anything to rule either way.
If the character's invested a feat in preventing the 5-foot dance then let them have it. A wizard/Archer/Spearman can still use a move action or a withdraw action to escape, they just can't escape and make a full-attack action at the same time (exept for the ones who can through various other abilities).
If you allow it when the guy isn't moving away from you, you are arguing that it is applicable when the guy isn't increasing the range.Nobody is suggesting allowing it when the target is not moving away from you. All that is being suggested is being ever so slightly generous in the definiton of "away". There is no slippery slope here; no need to allow anything else.
You may say that we cannot allow it in this particular case without allowing it in a bunch of other cases, but all I can say to that is "watch me".
_
glass.
Pretty much this. An overly literal interpretation of the feat strongly goes against the spirit of the feat.
I'm not certain what the exact wording should be the include the corner cases but not every random 5 ft. movement. Though PF1e garners the (accurate) criticism that combat often lacks mobility when characters would rather stand and swing. Generally, I'm in favor of encouraging a more dynamic battlefield than a stationary one.
Let's not make a mountain out of an Ankheg hill...
Assuming the intent of the feat is to prevent people from stepping out of combat and casting or shooting without provoking, then it doesn't really need to work if you don't threaten them anymore anyway.
I'd probably go with Quixote's interpretation as well.
This is quixote's interpetation.
Again, by RAW it seems clear enough that you can't.
I agree with this, (and Diego's reading of the rules on this).
Some food for thought:
If a creature is in darkness (and you don't have darkvision, but do have blindsense) and you are adjacent to it, could you use step up to follow that creature it if 5 foot steps away from you? To another square but still adjacent to you?
What if the creature is not in darkness, but steps into darkness (gaining cover) while still adjacent to you. Even if you allow step up in this case the creature is still going to have its cover against you regardless of where you move to. Since stepping up would not allow you to counter the creatures advantage in that case does step up no longer apply again?
Should going from no cover to having cover (as opposed to going from one square of cover to another square of cover) be a determining factor in whether you can step up or not? I do not believe, as written, that the step up rules allow for that. The creature in this case is simply taking advantage of the terrain.
Anyone who wants to house rule it otherwise, no problem. Do what you want in your games. But without explicit exceptions written into the rules, I'd posit that the rules have no special case handling intended to be able to use them. e.g, read them in their simpliest functional form, and that is the rule.
You can't 5 foot step in darkness with only blindsense, so you couldn't use a feat that allowed a 5 foot step. Darkness gives concealment and not cover, so that's not terribly relevant to the conversation.
As "step up" is written, you don't need to be aware of the target's movement, and you can use "step up" even if there is an interposing wall as long as you are still adjacent to the target. I doubt either are intended, so attaching the step up to the rules for threatening and making attacks of opportunity is useful just to get the feat sensible.
Making the feat something like:
"Whenever an adjacent foe that you threaten attempts to take a 5-foot step into a square you don't threaten, you may also make a 5-foot step as an immediate action so long as you end up adjacent to, and threatening, the foe that triggered this ability. If you take this step, you cannot take a 5-foot step during your next turn. If you take an action to move during your next turn, subtract 5 feet from your total movement.
You can't 5 foot step in darkness with only blindsense, so you couldn't use a feat that allowed a 5 foot step. Darkness gives concealment and not cover, so that's not terribly relevant to the conversation.
The reason being used that step up should be allowed against cover is because cover prevents an AoO. The purpose of stepping into darkness would also be to prevent an AoO. So very relevant to the conversation. For the can't 5' step in darkness issue - okay, creature is in the light, then takes a 5' step into darkness (while still adjacent to you). Can you 5' step in the scenario? You won't be able to get your ability to take AoO's back, but other than that detail this is the same as the 5' step to gain cover scenario.
As "step up" is written, you don't need to be aware of the target's movement, and you can use "step up" even if there is an interposing wall as long as you are still adjacent to the target. I doubt either are intended, so attaching the step up to the rules for threatening and making attacks of opportunity is useful just to get the feat sensible.
Strawman - but I'll address it anyway.
Interposing walls kind of ruin the whole adjacent thing.eg, from the combat section
With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can’t strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
Even though the rules don't spell it out, I wouldn't allow you to make a melee attack or threaten a square on the other side of an 'adjacent' wall. Nor do I expect you'd find any GM on the planet the would allow it (barring special circumstances like being able to both see and phase through the wall - at which point its just a wall in name only)
Making the feat something like:
"Whenever an adjacent foe that you threaten attempts to take a 5-foot step into a square you don't threaten, you may also make a 5-foot step as an immediate action so long as you end up adjacent to, and threatening, the foe that triggered this ability. If you take this step, you cannot take a 5-foot step during your next turn. If you take an action to move during your next turn, subtract 5 feet from your total movement.
This won't fix the cover issue. You still threaten a covered square, you just can't make an AoO against a foe in a covered square.
Like I've said, if you want to house rule this differently, add additional rules around it, etc. I'm fine with that. But given this is the rules forum we ought to at least get the rules right and state them as they are to answer the OP. (eg, why I took no issue with Quixote's stance). But if we want to make houserules to cover some edge cases around the step up feat, let's try and cover them all while we are at it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We can argue specifics all day, and clesrly it won't change anyone's mind.
The most obvious (and probably correct) interpretation of the rules is that an enemy stepping behind cover (but still adjacent) does not trigger Step-Up. There IS room to interpret this differently though, and the RAI for Step-Up is that enemies can't 5-foot-step away from you in this manner.
There are plenty of niche scenarios you can present to say: "Oh but in this scenario what happens? In that scenario what happens?" And in basically all of them it's very easy to adjudicate what is and isn't in the spirit of Step-Up.
Realistically these scenarios are so rare that I don't think I've ever seen it come up. Rule however you like, it won't matter. Personally I'm of the opinion that a player should get the benefit here - they invested a feat in this, and that feat likely only affects ~1/3 of combats, so why not let them have this niche scenario?
(Also the rules for reach weapons and cover are in the section on cover - you treat melee attacks against non-adjacent enemiies as ranged attacks with regard to cover if memory serves.)
Looking at the cover rules, it looks like Pathfinder uses adjacent in the "shared edge" sense, not in the literally touching sense. An interposing wall provides cover between adjacent targets, but doesn't make them non-adjacent. This is also the standard usage of the term in wargaming, maybe it's not intended.
Fair enough on the threatening versus being able to make an attack of opportunity. I don't think I've ever seen in play a situation where someone was threatening but couldn't take an aoo in a situation where them being threatening mattered. Flanking someone behind cover doesn't come up that often. So I guess I'd need to change it from threaten to aoo-able, but I think I'd rather rule that you didn't threaten someone you couldn't aoo instead.
Otherwise yes, if there was no way to get that aoo threat back from 5 footing, I would rule that you couldn't take the 5 foot step.