5' Step and AoA - AE does not clarify!

SableWyvern said:
First, I see I was wrong about Combat Reflexes. Is that unique to Conan, or a 3.5 thing?

On the main issue, having a copy of the rules now, and reading through the relevent sections, I maintain my original opinion. I can see where you're coming from a lot clearer now, though, Sutek. I put it down to ambiguous phrasing and and incorrect example though, rather than intent.


Combat Reflexes in Conan is exactly like D&D3.X. You gain a number of AOOs equal to your DEX mod added to the one afforded you normally.

I think that the key issue is that in the example, Valeria is moving away and out of Melee range, and since that's the main qualifier for an AOO, it gets confusing. No real explanation is given to the timeing of the "No Action". Even the name is confusing - is it an act, or isn't it? Delay is the only other "no action" and it has no chance of ever provoking an AOO, although it sounds like it should (standing there waiting for a new INIT would seem to make one more vunerable, but it doesn't - lol).

Free actions clearly take no time, but it's deinate activity. Where the 5' step crosses the line is that it's obviously an action (you are making a move and changing squares) but it's described as "sizing up" one's opponent and the actual movement on the tactical grid is not considered a move action at all. It's a move that isn't a move. Also, because the action is not "free," the 5' step then must take an ammount of time out of a given round of actions. What it seems to be then is an action which you may make and combine with other actions in a round, but it takes only as long as those other actions. Additionally then it must therefore use up the same fractin of a round as the action with which it is combined. If you 5' step and engage in a half-round action, the 5' step is considered part of that half-round action and you still have an entire half-round remaining.

All those aspects being true, why could a character not 5' step away from a single opponent, thus taking him out of melee range and therefore depriving that opponent of an AOO, and then take a normal Move action 30' away forgoing any chance to attack that oponent?

I guess what I'm getting at is that the implication is that the 5' move is happening at the same moment as the action it is combined with. In the above case, and in the case in the book where Valeria 5' moves away and shoots, both of these actions under normal AOO instances would provoke an AOO, so you simply have to play it out as if no distance had been gained. The 5' step was created with the intent of keeping people in melee but shifting to maximize a tactical advantage. If you move out of melee range, you are in essence giving that advantage up as well as making your self vulnerable.

Now, the other factor is that the book says tha the 5' step itself does not provoke an AOO unless...blah blah blah. In other words, normally it doesn't, but under [condition] it does. This really tends to make me think that the intent was to open up people to multiple shots as AOOs from opponents with Combat Reflexes. If I have a DEX of +4 then you're not likely to get away from me, but I can still only take as many AOO strikes as you provoke. The book makes a point to explain that moving out of more than one square is the same as moving out of just one - in other words you only provoke one AOO do to square movement from any given opponent. This reinforces that another means of accruing opportunities would be via 5' step since it is explained as provoking under the condition that the action with which it is combined also does.

What it boils down to is that if you want to remain in tactical range then you make a 5' step, but this step can be very costly if you're tryingot do more than one thing in that round that provokes an AOO. For instance, to get up from prone, make a 5' step and them try to trip a foe would acrue you 3 opportunities. :!:
 
Sutek said:
All those aspects being true, why could a character not 5' step away from a single opponent, thus taking him out of melee range and therefore depriving that opponent of an AOO, and then take a normal Move action 30' away forgoing any chance to attack that oponent?

Because you can't take a 5 ft. step in a round in which you move any distance.


I agree with you in the fact that if you take a 5 ft. step, you combine it with the action you are taking so it takes no action in itself. Therefore, it is conceivable that Valeria combined a 5 ft. step with a move action of "do nothing", then used a standard action to fire her bow. As the "do nothing" action doesn't provoke an AoO, nor do the combined action, leaving the bow shot to be in an unthreatened space and therefore not provoking.

If, however, she had combined her 5 ft. step with a full attack action of firing multiple shots, she would provoke an AoO, even though the bow shot would seemingly be taken from an unthreatened square, because the move and the shot were the same action.
 
Maybe what the book is trying to say is that if you make a 5' step, you're considered to be in both squares wrt attacks of opportunity.

So if you take a 5' step and fire a bow, you can be whacked by everybody whose zone of control includes either the square you started in or your final square.

I could have sworn somebody at Mongoose said the AE would make this clearer.


Combat Reflexes has always allowed more than one AoO on the same target (except in Star Wars) if they provoke them more than once, but it doesn't allow you to unload all of your AoOs on somebody who only provoked it once.
 
Sutek said:
All those aspects being true, why could a character not 5' step away from a single opponent, thus taking him out of melee range and therefore depriving that opponent of an AOO, and then take a normal Move action 30' away forgoing any chance to attack that oponent?

You mean apart from the specific rules stating that you don't get a 5 foot step if you use your ordinary action to move?
 
You aren't paying attention to the gist of the post, Mayhem. The point is not that I actually want to use a Move along with a 5' step. I know that a Move + 5' step isnt' legal, I'm just using the example to illustrate my point of how the word "combined" probably ought to be interpreted.
 
sbarrie said:
Combat Reflexes has always allowed more than one AoO on the same target (except in Star Wars) if they provoke them more than once, but it doesn't allow you to unload all of your AoOs on somebody who only provoked it once.

Right. What I was trying to capture was the instance in the book where it says that movement out of more than one enemy threatened square still only provokes a singl AOO. If you do it at least once, it provokes, even if you then move out of more than one square subsequently. The effect is that Combat Reflexes can't help you in that instance unless your opponent engages in more actions that provoke. You can run a complete circle around someone, moving through all of thier threatened squares, and still only provoke one AOO. Crazy, but true.

I still am under the impression that both the 5' step and the action with which it is combined will provoke one AOO each, for a total of at least 2 AOOs.
 
sbarrie: your "both squares" theory works identical in practice to mine, I think. Although the detail is different, the results would be the same, I'm fairly sure.

I disagree with you regarding 3.0 Combat Reflexes, but I don't know that this rather convoluted thread is the place for such a discussion. 8)
 
Actually, no.

As I see Sutek has pointed out, the difference lies in a situation where you move to another square threatened by the same person, where he and I would both award two AoOs.
 
To clarify, the 5 foot step rules and whether or not this misc. action incurs an attack of opportunity are as described in the text on pg. 162 of CtRPG: AE. The accompanying text to the example picture is incorrect and should read as follows;

'Valeria
Valeria takes a 5-foot step away from the pict and fires her bow, thus provoking an attack of opportunity.

Conan
Conan takes a 5-foot step to close with the man-ape, thus avoiding provoking any attacks of opportunity.'

Hopefully this clears up any confusion.

Richard Neale
Line Developer (Conan the Roleplaying Game)
Mongoose Publishing
 
Back
Top