Post/Author/DateTime	Post
maskimus 08-20-07, 04:02 PM	With all the discussion of 4th Ed.,I've seen several references to wanting to eliminate the "5 foot step" rule. I am very curious as to why. I, personally am neutral on the subject, never (until now) giving it a second thought. So please enlighten an ignorant old man. Why the hate?:confused:
Pallin Rahl 08-20-07, 04:07 PM	18 years ago, the 5 Foot Step killed my wife in cold blood. I swore that one day my vengeance would rain down upon the 5 Foot Step... that day may finally be at hand... :P Seriously though, I'm also interested to hear why some seem to dislike the 5 ft step (if indeed people are complaining). I too have never given it a second thought and have no problem with it at all (as implemented in the current system)... nor do I recall anyone ever complaining about it. ...uh ...even now, to be honest. :) (if someone is complaining about the 5 ft step, I'm still not seeing it hehe) /shrug
RobbyPants 08-20-07, 04:08 PM	Maybe some people find it confusing. Personally, I like it (at least with the current rule-set). It allows casters to back off out of melee (if they aren't surrounded) without an AoO. It allows attackers to still move a bit and make a full attack. It gives you an extra bit of versitility in your actions. Often time it doesn't matter. Sometimes it's night and day.
stargate525 08-20-07, 04:10 PM	It allows casters to back off out of melee (if they aren't surrounded) without an AoO. It allows attackers to still move a bit and make a full attack. It gives you an extra bit of versitility in your actions. Often time it doesn't matter. Sometimes it's night and day. I agree. It makes combat more than a simple 'walk up and face off until dead,' although that still happens. I'm thinking about making the five foot step required in order to get your dex bonus to AC...
AzureDeep 08-20-07, 04:14 PM	I too like the 5' step...when battling a monster with a 10' reach a 5' step could save your skin!
name44 08-20-07, 04:16 PM	Maybe they think there should be more attacks of opportunity in the game? Perhaps they see everyone using 5' steps and other cunning strategies to avoid provoking attacks of opportunity and so they think that AoOs have effectively been cut from the game. In which case they're failing to release that AoOs are influencing the game strongly every time they induce someone to change their behaviour. I don't know though, because I'm quite fine with the 5' step.
gullas 08-20-07, 04:17 PM	I really don't care about the 5foot step rule:D
bobothechimp 08-20-07, 04:22 PM	I absolutely love 5 foot steps with melee characters. It makes it so much easier to get into a flanking position. I absolutely have 5 foot steps with everyone else. You can move up next to a caster, hoping to prevent them from getting off a spell, but nope, they take a 5 foot step back and cast it just fine. You can move next to an archer, hoping to prevent them from using their bow, but nope, they just take a 5 foot step back and shoot it just fine. I also am not a big fan of casting defensively, for the same reason. It makes it way too easy to cast in melee. I would like it if casting defensively increased casting time or something, right now there is no reason not to.
deanruel 08-20-07, 04:22 PM	The biggest problem with the 5 foot step is that it allows for the "Spellcasters Waltz". Basically it's where a spellcaster gets forced into melee with a fighter class and simply spends every round taking a 5 foot step backward then casting. Work's just as well for archers. This sort of takes the sails out of the "Casters are weak in melee!" idea and the whole concept of casting defensively. Now there are several situations in which the Waltz doesn't function and I'm sure everyone can think of them. But the fact is that your average player character is a medium sized creature who, more likely than not, does not wield a reach weapon. This causes fighter type characters to have relatively unsatisfying battles with enemy spellcasters because each round is essentially a rinse and repeat situation with no one feeling like they have a real tactical advantage. So while I am not -particularly- opposed to the 5 foot step I have seen it frustrate players. I recall a battle between one of my players fighters and an enemy mage where after three or four rounds of "The Waltz" my player just exasperatedly said "Can't I DO something about that!? Is there anything I can do?". So I can see why some might have a severe dislike for it.
ZeronHitaro 08-20-07, 04:25 PM	The biggest problem with the 5 foot step is that it allows for the "Spellcasters Waltz". Basically it's where a spellcaster gets forced into melee with a fighter class and simply spends every round taking a 5 foot step backward then casting. Work's just as well for archers. This sort of takes the sails out of the "Casters are weak in melee!" idea and the whole concept of casting defensively. Now there are several situations in which the Waltz doesn't function and I'm sure everyone can think of them. But the fact is that your average player character is a medium sized creature who, more likely than not, does not wield a reach weapon. This causes fighter type characters to have relatively unsatisfying battles with enemy spellcasters because each round is essentially a rinse and repeat situation with no one feeling like they have a real tactical advantage. So while I am not -particularly- opposed to the 5 foot step I have seen it frustrate players. I recall a battle between one of my players fighters and an enemy mage where after three or four rounds of "The Waltz" my player just exasperatedly said "Can't I DO something about that!? Is there anything I can do?". So I can see why some might have a severe dislike for it. Two words can solve that whole issue: Reach Weaponry. Aka, Pole Arms, Spiked Chains, ect. Anything with a 10ft. reach negates that Waltz.
Orenmir 08-20-07, 04:42 PM	The biggest problem with the 5 foot step is that it allows for the "Spellcasters Waltz". Basically it's where a spellcaster gets forced into melee with a fighter class and simply spends every round taking a 5 foot step backward then casting. Work's just as well for archers. This sort of takes the sails out of the "Casters are weak in melee!" idea and the whole concept of casting defensively. Now there are several situations in which the Waltz doesn't function and I'm sure everyone can think of them. But the fact is that your average player character is a medium sized creature who, more likely than not, does not wield a reach weapon. This causes fighter type characters to have relatively unsatisfying battles with enemy spellcasters because each round is essentially a rinse and repeat situation with no one feeling like they have a real tactical advantage. So while I am not -particularly- opposed to the 5 foot step I have seen it frustrate players. I recall a battle between one of my players fighters and an enemy mage where after three or four rounds of "The Waltz" my player just exasperatedly said "Can't I DO something about that!? Is there anything I can do?". So I can see why some might have a severe dislike for it. I think the 5' step was made for this exact reason. Without it, the fighter would toast the wizard. And that would definitely go against everybody's "Fighter suck, Wizards rule" mentality. Without the 5' step, the wizard would be the one complaining. So, I guess he was thrown a bone. This was my solution... I play a large-sized Occult Slayer with the feat Large and in Charge.
peteyrock 08-20-07, 04:52 PM	I don't mind ditching it. There were all sorts of problems that arose from it. The 5-foot step went away in Star Wars Saga Edition, and I believe it was for the better. Now, more movement is needed, thereby making melee battles more intrigueing. Not to mention, terrain comes into play more. It's more like in what we read and watch now. So long, 5 foot step! No longer will you dull my games or make my players snicker with rambunctious glee when they use it and moan in agony when it is used against them.
Meep326 08-20-07, 05:18 PM	Because it makes no sense? I step 5ft away and you don't get an AoO, but I move 10ft away (10ft farther than you can reach) and you can now attack me?
jetpack 08-20-07, 05:40 PM	Two words can solve that whole issue: Reach Weaponry. Aka, Pole Arms, Spiked Chains, ect. Anything with a 10ft. reach negates that Waltz. A wizard should never be playing the 5-foot waltz anyway. A simple defensive casting and a teleport later the problem is solved. Leaving his opponent to contemplate the finer details of (insert favorite ranged spell of doom here).:D As to the 5-foot step in general, I love it. With out it combat would be a stand still because no one would want to give his opponent an attack of opportunity.
Mojo_Rat 08-20-07, 05:44 PM	the 5' step rule puts the onus on the Agressor to keep the victim in place when dealing with enemy spell casters. You can get around it by forgoing your own actionand stating 'if he starts to cast i step forward and full attack him' (assuming the wizard did the waltz the last round) This trick works but it seems to be a tactic that most players dont want to do. I really like the 5' step when its just a bunch of melee types moving and co-ordinating with or against eachother.
Remmer 08-20-07, 05:49 PM	So deanruel your players have characters who can't figure out how to take out a spell caster? Since they would apparently rather whine than use a reach weapon, have you ever had them consider... oh, I don't know, having their beefy "fighter types" grapple a frail mage here or there?
Holy_Beholder 08-20-07, 05:50 PM	18 years ago, the 5 Foot Step killed my wife in cold blood. I swore that one day my vengeance would rain down upon the 5 Foot Step... that day may finally be at hand... :P Seriously though, I'm also interested to hear why some seem to dislike the 5 ft step (if indeed people are complaining). I too have never given it a second thought and have no problem with it at all (as implemented in the current system)... nor do I recall anyone ever complaining about it. ...uh ...even now, to be honest. :) (if someone is complaining about the 5 ft step, I'm still not seeing it hehe) /shrug I like it, but it is sort of a problem when massive creatures still only have the 5 ft step. I mean come on, a human can rush forward their body length and a dragon can kind of shuffle.
jetpack 08-20-07, 05:56 PM	I like it, but it is sort of a problem when massive creatures still only have the 5 ft step. I mean come on, a human can rush forward their body length and a dragon can kind of shuffle. I never thought of that. I agree with you though, it doesn's make sense that a huge creature gets only a five foot step. Maybe the 5-foot step should scale with size (ie large creature gets 10ft step, huge 15, etc.) It would make more sense that way. Although I feel That it gives a way bigger adavntage to being larger. Maybe they can tackle this in 4e.
Tempest Stormwind 08-20-07, 06:17 PM	They tackled it in Saga. There's no 5' step there -- however, there's an increased importance on the standard action over the full attack. The 5' step is so critical to D&D because of the incredible importance of the full attack in the melee character. It's not so critical to spellcasters, who (as aleady mentioned) can defensively cast a Dimension Door or similar, not to mention use immediate actions or contingencies to do similar. In Saga, this isn't the case. Charge is a standard action. Withdraw is a move action. Spring Attack costs one feat instead of three, and people get more feats (in addition to the 1, +1/3 levels that D&D characters get, all Saga base classes get starting proficiency feats and at least one bonus feat every two levels). Iterative attacks are not a basic part of the system (high-level characters can get them, but it's not absolutely required; I'm not as intimately familiar with Saga as I am with D&D yet, though, so I can't speak on how important they are). Thanks to these changes, you don't need the 5' step as badly and can instead focus on moving between targets and cover as necessary. The Tome of Battle classes do something similar. By reducing the need to take full attacks (via introducing standard action strikes that allow you to put out a comparable contribution in battle), the martial adepts instantly feel more dynamic than their fighter counterparts. Their "5' step" becomes the 30' dash for a similar fundamental effect. This also has the advantage of covering the "humans can move their body length but great worms can barely shuffle" problem -- each creature can move up to its speed and take its action, which is comparable to a full attack in most cases... Since Saga's been called 4e's "test" (note: WotC has stated this) and the Tome of Battle was considered a step toward it, I'd suspect that 4e won't need the 5' step, just as noted above. Try a martial adept to get a feel for this in the course of your next game. (Oh, and for those players complaining about the "spellcaster waltz": Did you forget about the readied action? Move up to the wizard and instead of smacking him, ready an action to trip him if he moves. This forces him to either cast defensively (which you can prevent with appropriate feats) or wind up face down in the dirt. Using readied actions can also counter casting defensively. The mage can't move out of your threatened area, so he's using defensive casting? Great, he doesn't provoke AoOs, but he triggers actions readied on "if he begins casting a spell", so your chain still smacks him in the face. My DM has used this trick repeatedly on my casters; it's far more effective than attempting to close to melee. (Of course, I counter it in one character by having ludicroulsy good AC and mobility for a mage, and in the other by having a very high miss chance (so high that even an infinite AC is hit more often than me). But that's another story.)
Salla 08-20-07, 07:55 PM	It bears mentioning that while there is no 5' step in SWSaga, Withdraw is a move action. So, using those rules in D&D, a wizard can no longer 5' step and blast with abandon. He can back up fifteen feet and blast with abandon, just as a move action rather than a free action. :)
stargate525 08-20-07, 08:03 PM	The biggest problem with the 5 foot step is that it allows for the "Spellcasters Waltz". Basically it's where a spellcaster gets forced into melee with a fighter class and simply spends every round taking a 5 foot step backward then casting. Work's just as well for archers. This sort of takes the sails out of the "Casters are weak in melee!" idea and the whole concept of casting defensively. Now there are several situations in which the Waltz doesn't function and I'm sure everyone can think of them. But the fact is that your average player character is a medium sized creature who, more likely than not, does not wield a reach weapon. This causes fighter type characters to have relatively unsatisfying battles with enemy spellcasters because each round is essentially a rinse and repeat situation with no one feeling like they have a real tactical advantage. Right, because your players are stupid enough to realize that with four of them, it's easy to create a situation where backing up puts him in danger too?
Holy_Beholder 08-20-07, 08:25 PM	This also has the advantage of covering the "humans can move their body length but great worms can barely shuffle" problem -- each creature can move up to its speed and take its action, which is comparable to a full attack in most cases... Its Great Wyrm. Worm just sounds like a big slimy creature.
BlaineTog 08-20-07, 09:47 PM	the 5' step rule puts the onus on the Agressor to keep the victim in place when dealing with enemy spell casters. You can get around it by forgoing your own actionand stating 'if he starts to cast i step forward and full attack him' (assuming the wizard did the waltz the last round) This trick works but it seems to be a tactic that most players dont want to do.You can't actually do it, either, since you can only ready standard actions. (Oh, and for those players complaining about the "spellcaster waltz": Did you forget about the readied action? Move up to the wizard and instead of smacking him, ready an action to trip him if he moves. This forces him to either cast defensively (which you can prevent with appropriate feats) or wind up face down in the dirt.Yeah, but you could also just trip him straight-up, without giving up your full-attack.
Tempest Stormwind 08-20-07, 10:40 PM	Yeah, but you could also just trip him straight-up, without giving up your full-attack. True. The point holds, though. As I said, my DMs are fond of targeting me with readied archers with the trigger "when he begins casting a spell" or the equivalent. Turns into a sort of ranged AoO (figuratively) that can't be mitigated by defensive casting. (Hiding displays on one character, invisibility+auto-silent-spell on the other comes in really handy, though. Good luck targeting me or identifying me as a spellcaster.)
pres_man 08-20-07, 11:24 PM	I might also point out that in SAGA you don't draw an AoO when firing a ranged weapon while in melee.
CCS 08-21-07, 12:02 AM	A wizard should never be playing the 5-foot waltz anyway. A simple defensive casting and a teleport later the problem is solved. Leaving his opponent to contemplate the finer details of (insert favorite ranged spell of doom here).:D As to the 5-foot step in general, I love it. With out it combat would be a stand still because no one would want to give his opponent an attack of opportunity. So the REAL culprit would seem to be the AoOs.... And indeed I've seen these bog games down considerabley and in general just get in the way of descriptive/cinamatic play.
Salla 08-21-07, 12:27 AM	I might also point out that in SAGA you don't draw an AoO when firing a ranged weapon while in melee. I think this is more a matter of the simple point-n-click use of blasters rather than the slow aiming of arrows and the like, but that's just my impression. :)
Qwicksilver 08-21-07, 03:49 AM	The biggest problem with the 5 foot step is that it allows for the "Spellcasters Waltz". Basically it's where a spellcaster gets forced into melee with a fighter class and simply spends every round taking a 5 foot step backward then casting. Work's just as well for archers. This sort of takes the sails out of the "Casters are weak in melee!" idea and the whole concept of casting defensively. Now there are several situations in which the Waltz doesn't function and I'm sure everyone can think of them. But the fact is that your average player character is a medium sized creature who, more likely than not, does not wield a reach weapon. This causes fighter type characters to have relatively unsatisfying battles with enemy spellcasters because each round is essentially a rinse and repeat situation with no one feeling like they have a real tactical advantage. So while I am not -particularly- opposed to the 5 foot step I have seen it frustrate players. I recall a battle between one of my players fighters and an enemy mage where after three or four rounds of "The Waltz" my player just exasperatedly said "Can't I DO something about that!? Is there anything I can do?". So I can see why some might have a severe dislike for it. I'd hate to say that you can battle the spell-caster with more spells, rather than say "hey a fighter doesn't have to use magic to screw over magic users". But... a simple enlarge person, which you could get cast on you or have a potion of, etc. could very well make you a creature with 10ft reach. Despite that, any spell-caster worth his salt is going to have a concentration high enough to stay in one spot and be able to cast defensively, thus eliminating the real advantage of a 5-ft step. Not to mention the "screw over melee classes" spells like dimension door, which only have verbal components. You'd be surprised how frustrating it is when you finally make a character who's actually good at grappling and all of a sudden... "nope I dimension door" before you get a chance to pin the bastard.
RobbyPants 08-21-07, 09:36 AM	The biggest problem with the 5 foot step is that it allows for the "Spellcasters Waltz". Basically it's where a spellcaster gets forced into melee with a fighter class and simply spends every round taking a 5 foot step backward then casting. Work's just as well for archers. This sort of takes the sails out of the "Casters are weak in melee!" idea and the whole concept of casting defensively. Now there are several situations in which the Waltz doesn't function and I'm sure everyone can think of them. But the fact is that your average player character is a medium sized creature who, more likely than not, does not wield a reach weapon. This causes fighter type characters to have relatively unsatisfying battles with enemy spellcasters because each round is essentially a rinse and repeat situation with no one feeling like they have a real tactical advantage. So while I am not -particularly- opposed to the 5 foot step I have seen it frustrate players. I recall a battle between one of my players fighters and an enemy mage where after three or four rounds of "The Waltz" my player just exasperatedly said "Can't I DO something about that!? Is there anything I can do?". So I can see why some might have a severe dislike for it. Also, even if a caster can just back up 5 feet and cast, the melee fighter can just move up 5 feet on his turn and still get a full-attack. That is what I like about it. Even though it gives someone flexibility, it gives other combatants different flexibility. ...not to mention all the other options people have expliained ;)
Rogue Shadows 08-21-07, 09:57 AM	The biggest problem with the 5 foot step is that it allows for the "Spellcasters Waltz". Basically it's where a spellcaster gets forced into melee with a fighter class and simply spends every round taking a 5 foot step backward then casting. Work's just as well for archers. This sort of takes the sails out of the "Casters are weak in melee!" idea and the whole concept of casting defensively. Now there are several situations in which the Waltz doesn't function and I'm sure everyone can think of them. But the fact is that your average player character is a medium sized creature who, more likely than not, does not wield a reach weapon. This causes fighter type characters to have relatively unsatisfying battles with enemy spellcasters because each round is essentially a rinse and repeat situation with no one feeling like they have a real tactical advantage. I'd almost argue here, though, that this makes perfect tactical sense - for the wizard. I mean, the Evil Necromancer King is hardly going to stand still and let Joe Conan bludgeon him to death. He's gonna run and cast, run and cast. Think about all the fights you see between a caster and a warrior in movies. Once the warrior closes into melee, the caster either dies or starts running backwards while casting. Same deal with an archer/gunslinger when caught in melee. At the same time, Joe Gandalf isn't gonna want to sit still while the Evil Bandit Warlord starts slicing his guts open. I mean, if you decide that you want to implement a rules system where the casters die pretty much the moment a warrior-type gets within slashing distance, then that rules system has to work both ways - the Good Guy Caster is as likely to die as the Bad Guy Caster, all other variables being equal. And that's not fun for any players who like to play casters. On the other hand, if you let one waltz, then there's no reason why the other shouldn't be able to waltz as well.
Hugin 08-21-07, 10:02 AM	I'm in the camp that likes the 5-foot step. It provides some additional battlefield dynamics that keeps things constantly evolving. Generally, each character takes their 5-foot step each round in my games, PC and NPC alike.
Count Arioch the 28th 08-21-07, 10:14 AM	I heard rumors that 4.0 will eliminate AoO's entirely, therefore 5 foot steps will be mostly irrelevant.
thecasualoblivion 08-21-07, 10:26 AM	I've completely eliminated the mage waltz from my game. I've ruled that the 5ft step is a component part of whatever action the character takes, and therefore does not evade AoOs. The step is part of casting the spell. If you were threatened at any point during your action, you provoke an attack.
Archtyrant Terevoth 08-21-07, 01:58 PM	I'd hate to say that you can battle the spell-caster with more spells, rather than say "hey a fighter doesn't have to use magic to screw over magic users". But... a simple enlarge person, which you could get cast on you or have a potion of, etc. could very well make you a creature with 10ft reach. Yeah, I think the main 5 ft step problem is that it forces you to get reach or a reach weapon to battle a caster. This tends to overpower reach fighters. Of course, I'm not sure how the game will go if remove the 5 ft step. It will mean you can't close into melee at all without provoking an AoO from a reach character, which may well make them even tougher. It also makes flanking much harder, which is a hit to the rogue. I heard rumors that 4.0 will eliminate AoO's entirely, therefore 5 foot steps will be mostly irrelevant. I certainly hope not. Eliminating AoOs would be really bad for the game.
Count Arioch the 28th 08-22-07, 11:11 AM	I certainly hope not. Eliminating AoOs would be really bad for the game. I think though that we should wait until we see the lack of AoO's in the framework of the entire game before we judge. (Personally, 4E will really have to rock my socks off before I think about converting over, but I will at least keep an open mind that it might.)
Archtyrant Terevoth 08-22-07, 03:28 PM	I think though that we should wait until we see the lack of AoO's in the framework of the entire game before we judge. Sure, I just always felt AoOs were one of the better additions to the game. Well, up until the point they started making feats like Karmic strike and robilar's gambit that provoked a ridiculous number of AoOs.
Holy_Beholder 08-22-07, 07:22 PM	Yeah, I think the main 5 ft step problem is that it forces you to get reach or a reach weapon to battle a caster. This tends to overpower reach fighters. Of course, I'm not sure how the game will go if remove the 5 ft step. It will mean you can't close into melee at all without provoking an AoO from a reach character, which may well make them even tougher. It also makes flanking much harder, which is a hit to the rogue. I certainly hope not. Eliminating AoOs would be really bad for the game. Grapple the caster, then pin them and they are screwed unless they happen to have a silent stilled spell. Or are a psionic caster. Mages tend to have horrible grapple modifiers. It also means that you can't exit the range of a non reach fighter without provoking an AoO, which keeps it balanced. So use tactics, and screw them over with a hall way. Remember 5 ft wide hall ways+tumble=instant surrounding. And ownage by sneak attack. And they can't move, which means they are also full attacking, but it is 2-1. Tumble+reach figther+another reach fighter makes this 4-1. Also surrouding a reach fighter in a hall way with tumble is fun, they have to either use a side arm or an unarmed attack on you. Or pull out a ranged weapon and get 2 attack of oppurtunities, one of which has sneak attack damage.
Tempest Stormwind 08-22-07, 08:53 PM	Grapple the caster, then pin them and they are screwed unless they happen to have a silent stilled spell. Or are a psionic caster. Mages tend to have horrible grapple modifiers. Just a note: You have to do this before Freedom of Movement is available. Furthermore, if you can't pin them in one round, they can Dimension Door away with an easy Concentration check. (Psions also have to make this check, by the way; just because they lack components doesn't mean they can ignore the grappler.)
Holy_Beholder 08-23-07, 02:48 PM	Yes, but psions have a really annoying tendency to make that concentration check. Also, you might want to have your wizard/psion dispel freedom of movement first. Also, pinning a wizard in one round is like trying to hit a dragon with a touch attack, 50 dex, weapon focus ray, and a very big strong version of the tanglefoot bag.
Phrennzy 08-23-07, 05:51 PM	One of the rumors of 4th edition has been a reduction of AoOs, not their elimination. (Not discounting the earlier rumor - that's the trouble with rumors, they could either or neither be true). Cast on the defensive is the way to go, at any rate. Pump up that Concentration and have at it. No AoO, no 5' step, just fine grain fighter-dust at your feet.
deanruel 08-27-07, 01:28 AM	A number of people have, since I posted the fairly definitive fault behind the 5ft step, mentioned a number of "Anti-Waltz" strategies. I should point out that neither I, nor those I have played with, are unaware of the ways one may put a crimp into a spellcaster's dancin plans. Tactics include: Grappling, Becoming large, and Readying actions. You'll note that holding a reach weapon is not a directly viable strategy because when you wield a reach weapon you no longer threaten directly adjacent squares. Thusly a spellcaster facing a glaive wielding fighter doesn't even need to waltz he can just shoot you in the face. Thusly the tactics, and their weaknesses boil down to: Reach Weapon: Doesn't really work. You can wear spiked gauntlets or take the improved unarmed strike feat and turn this into a viable strategy but this doesn't even do much in and of itself. Both fists and gauntleted fists are light weapons and that means you can't power attack. Meaning unless you are a SERIOUSLY bad mofo you aren't gonna deal more than 5-10 damage even on a good hit. Grapple: Grappling will indeed nullify a mage you catch unprepared. This does assume this fight is occuring pre-dimension door and Freedom of Movement but that's OK. The problem here is that you, the Fighter, are now dealing very very small amounts of damage each turn. Meaning you're not -really- doing your job. If it's your whole team VS that one caster then sure you're doing fine but if there are multiple threats on the field, or it's a situationally dependent battle (as they often are) the mage here has still put a serious damper on your fighting prowess. Become Large: Sweet! Good Plan! Being large negates the Waltz entirely. Unfortunately most (all) pure melee classes do not have access to the Enlarge Person spell. And at the risk of turning this into another "Is the Fighter weak" thread I will simply say that it seems silly to me to counter the statement "This game feature makes casters more powerful than fighters and makes fighters jobs harder" with the statement "It's OK! The team caster can make it better!". That is all. If you can turn large then good for you but most characters are medium, take it how you will. Readying an Action: This one is basically as close as you can get to a decent plan. It does do much the same thing as grappling however, albeit a better job. Basically a Fighter who would normally get multiple attacks is reduced to playing slapsies with the mage. The moment the mage tries to do something the Fighter smacks him and that usually works allright. But like grappling, although once again to a lesser degree, this means that the Fighter is being LESS of a Fighter than his class is supposed to allow him to be. So either way the caster is putting a serious damper on his abilities. Thusly when you add everything together you basically get the same statement we started with. The 5ft step creates the Waltz and this, while far from an undefeatable strategy, makes it much harder for fighting types to deal with casters. If you're an Ogre, a spiked chain wielder, a grappling specialist, or just a guy who doesn't mind not being able to do your job as well as you could then the Waltz is not a problem. But the fact is the number of spiked chain wielding Ogre monks is vastly less than the number of medium sized greatsword wielding adventurer types who WANT to be able to use their classes main ability. In conclusion I will once again state I use the 5ft step in my games and I don't have a real problem with it. But I DO see what problems other people might have with it. Happy Gaming everyone, and please don't turn this into a "Is the Fighter Underpowered" thread.