Why are the minnions being shot at from range while their boss is fighting? Minnions die first the BBEG should still be laughing from the other side of the room.
|
When I played a cavalier, if someone did the "Ready to 5-foot in" trick to dodge my lance, that was fine. The charge would finish with a shield bash instead of a lance hit. Also, the mount would get to attack (whereas normally, it couldn't reach). It's a downgrade, but not a total loss.
And the next round, the cheeky foe is adjacent. He can no longer 5-foot away at all.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And why the heck did the BBEG charge straight at a guy who was obviously waiting and ready for him? The list of issues with the example is getting long; when you have to reach that far to contrive a situation in which your claim would be valid, your claim is not valid.
|
And why the heck did the BBEG charge straight at a guy who was obviously waiting and ready for him? The list of issues with the example is getting long; when you have to reach that far to contrive a situation in which your claim would be valid, your claim is not valid.
Because I do not metagame as a GM. Readying an action in no way confers to the bad guys what action is readied or what the provoking action is.
The scenario is simplistic to avoid a book, however it is perfectly valid, regardless of how many minions or there actions.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And why the heck did the BBEG charge straight at a guy who was obviously waiting and ready for him? The list of issues with the example is getting long; when you have to reach that far to contrive a situation in which your claim would be valid, your claim is not valid.Because I do not metagame as a GM. Readying an action in no way confers to the bad guys what action or what the provoking action is.
That's not what I said. Of course the BBEG doesn't know what the PC's plan is, but it's clear in-character that he's ready for something, and that should give a would-be charger pause.
|
Readying an action in no way confers to the bad guys what action or what the provoking action is.
Sometimes it surely does.
If I ready the action "I fire my bow at the first orc to come through the door," there is a pretty good chance that I have nocked an arrow and am aiming my bow at the the door.
Conversely, if you saw me with my bow aimed at a door, you might suspect that I am readying to shoot someone walking through said doorway.
|
|
That's not what I said. Of course the BBEG doesn't know what the PC's plan is, but it's clear in-character that he's ready for something, and that should give a would-be charger pause.And why the heck did the BBEG charge straight at a guy who was obviously waiting and ready for him? The list of issues with the example is getting long; when you have to reach that far to contrive a situation in which your claim would be valid, your claim is not valid.Because I do not metagame as a GM. Readying an action in no way confers to the bad guys what action or what the provoking action is.
If you had a spear in hand and chose not to act with it would give a would be charger pause.
A tank seeing lanky dex monkey isn't going to be intimidated, and the readied action prevents both charging and move, attack so your example is still invalid.
|
Because I do not metagame as a GM. Readying an action in no way confers to the bad guys what action or what the provoking action is.
A tank seeing lanky dex monkey isn't going to be intimidated, and the readied action prevents both charging and move, attack so your example is still invalid.
I see a change in your tune here from 'the bad guy has no idea what action will be coming' to 'the tank will not be intimidated by the readied action', which is highly specified. Any combatant will at least consider if attacking a readied opponent is wise, and either way it is not metagaming to have the character decide to continue or alter tactics.
|
|
Because I do not metagame as a GM. Readying an action in no way confers to the bad guys what action or what the provoking action is.A tank seeing lanky dex monkey isn't going to be intimidated, and the readied action prevents both charging and move, attack so your example is still invalid.I see a change in your tune here from 'the bad guy has no idea what action will be coming' to 'the tank will not be intimidated by the readied action', which is highly specified. Any combatant will at least consider if attacking a readied opponent is wise, and either way it is not metagaming to have the character decide to continue or alter tactics.
No change in tune. Arguing on forums is difficult because even if you don't intend to use absolutes, people can infer them and say just because of an outlier you're wrong! Not you are 99% correct, but you missed some exceptions. I would simply state there is only a few hundred rules in Pathfinder, but with about 50,000 exceptions.
BBEG with a battle axe has one target within range this round. The target is obviously not flat-flooted, but BBEG is still gonna be confident in his own abilities. If the stated tactics say he attacks the nearest opponent...
|
|
Toz, None of these qualifiers are relevant to the original post about using questionable readied actions to invalidate any melee attack options by a BBEG. Other than 1 notable exception, Grandpoobah, posters avoid the issue by stating the situation isn't realistic, or the BBEG should do something else.
Without map or tactics people are creating their own or simply refuse to confront the issue at hand by using outliers. But when I attempt to use qualifiers to redirect to the actual issue I am wrong?
The tank-like BBEG can be nullified using these tactics for at least 1.5 rounds or longer (by anyone). That much is true regardless of whether he advances or charges or chooses an alternate target in his second round.
I love the suggestion to enforce very specific conditions for the readied actions and intend to research more on this. I am curious about any alternative strategies to dissuade this use as I believe it breaks the game, encourages power players, and allows passing of scenarios without expenditure of resources if abused.
It has not been an issue as of yet, but I'd like to prepare for worst case. I am not interested in killing players indiscriminately, only giving them an adequate challenge. (Since I can't modify equipment or encounters, what other options are there?)
|
|
With apologies, I'm working my way through this thread, and I might be replying to something that has already been hashed out and resolved in the last couple of hours of posting. I'll catch up shortly. In the meantime, I want to respond to this bit about readying a 5' step:
3) This defeats a person coming out of stealth to melee attack. An opponent appears from no where and swings at you, Per my readied action, "I attack and 5' step back and oh, if he wants to follow me he is no longer stealthed".I would never allow this, both as a GM for my home games, and as a GM for Pathfinder Society. I think there are enough rules to back me up with the notion that the victim of a stealth attack is caught off guard (aside from just the entire concept being that the PC is caught off guard). For example, there is this text from the rules on the stealth skill:
Creatures that fail to beat your Stealth check are not aware of youIf you are not aware of the attacker, I fail to see how your readied action can work. To me, that would be like a player saying, "We make camp and go to sleep, but we all ready counterstrikes against people who sneak up on us in our sleep." I mean, hey, great idea, totally metagamey way to cheat the system, but a readied action doesn't somehow give you an exemption from normal rules about needing to actually be aware of your opponent. Readied actions don't give you superhuman abilities to perceive everything around you, and they don't allow you to bypass all the normal rules for simulating physics and biology. If your character is asleep, you can't ready against attackers. If your character is caught unaware, you can't trigger your ready, because you have not yet perceived the threat.
I would rule the same. I am curious about a stealthed character making a full attack round, but is cut off by the readied action before the iterative attack can be adjudicated, since it is an interruptible action and he is now aware.
I'm not poking holes into your response, as it is appreciated. I'm looking to forward the conversation to its logical conclusion. (That this rule leads to some illogical conclusions!)
|
|
Oh, it'd be much, much worse for the BBEG in my games. You have a problem with this tactic because it reduces the BBEG to getting only 1 standard attack. However, by my reading of the rules, I'd allow zero attacks for the BBEG. This is because in your last part, you note that his attack was foiled, so he stepped forward and then used a standard action to attack. For me, though, I'd allow the ready action to 5' away to be an interrupt on the attack. In other words, in your example, the BBEG 5' stepped up and tried to attack but was foiled. At that point, he's done moving because he already 5' stepped, and he already tried an attack action, so there is way left for him to move. The 5' mandates no other movement.
Interesting. At least at the tables I've participated in the 5' step can be adjusted into a move action, retroactively applying any penalties such as AOO's incurred for the first 5' and reducing the movement by 5', but perhaps thats due to forgiving GM's and a host of newer players. I will dwell on this. Thank you.
|
|
Maybe I'm being too nit-picky there?
In any case, I like my players to be mean to my BBEGs and when they ruin my plans, I have fun. I tend to overplan, and when they wreck things, I am forced to be spontaneous. I like that.
I can find no fault in your logic, so I wouldn't retro the 5' action because it already caused an external effect which does of course make my scenario worse, and I am am not pleased by that outcome and appreciate the insight at the same time.
Since this problem has existed since the publishing of the CRB, I have no hope of seeing this patched, errata'd, faq'd or whatever. I love this game but took it personal when I see people intentionally using actions that break the mechanics.
Although I am more comfortable than I was with it 12 hours ago, I still wish to prepare myself for the eventuality. The OP concerns were with people using this tactics while metagaming the encounter (I interpret that as pre-reading or GM'ing and acting accordingly)
My takeaways against these actions so far are:
-look to control the battlefield by denying 5' steps (darkness, grease, ect.)
-singling out characters who have already acted when possible
-ranged attacks on those people who look like they are just standing there. Maybe have the BBEG throw a hand axe or something.
-requiring more specifics on readied actions by the player
If there are others I have missed please share. I'm going through the earlier topics as well, so thank you Nosig.
|
|
An additional idea taken from Nosig's link:
Have the BBEG advance with a readied standard action, "If the DMTF attacks me, I attack back" thereby interrupting the DMTF's interrupt before he can step back. Feels metagamey (and smells strongly of cheese) to me but its a tool that may be needed someday nevertheless. Recording here for posterity.
Wait...Its late and my head needs a break. Something occurred to me while writing this...
DMTF wins Initiative. Readies action to stab and 5' step if BBEG enters his melee range.
BBEG moves next to DMTF and readies a standard to attack DMTF if he is attacked.
DMTF tries to attack via readied action, but is interrupted by BBEG who attacks, then DMTF attacks and 5' steps.
Normally a readied action/interrupt places you ahead of the provoking action... so does BBEG now have the relative + initiative?
If so it prevents the PC from melee locking the BBEG with readied actions and 5' steps.
|
Assuming that readied 5 foot steps are even legal (a distinction upon which I'm not commenting) they're not that big a deal, imo. Definitely not game breaking.
If the player wants to trade his action for the monster's, there's several ways to preserve the monster's action if the GM feels that tactic is abusive.
The GM can play the meta game right back. If the monster is intelligent (especially if it's more intelligent than humans, like the real world GM) the GM can simply use that knowledge of the declared action and have the BBEG not waste his action accordingly. "Oh, if I move up you plan to move away? Fine, your action is already wasted, I'll just do something else/attack someone else." If a GM is going to portray the tactics of something that's smarter than the GM is, then using meta knowledge of the PCs actually is a fine way to simulate that super-human intelligence.
If the monster doesn't have the smarts to justify claiming it is smarter than the GM is, make the player hide his PC's planned trick with an opposed Bluff check. The GM can still have it roll (and if the GM feels necessary, fudge the dice to succeed) on a Sense Motive check to come to the same result.
So in short, like everything else.. abusive actions by players can only go on so long as the GM tolerates it. Power is still on the GM's side of the screen, even in PFS.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Accusations of "cheese" aside,
No accusation. That was a statement of fact. And by fact, I don't mean that it is a fact that it is cheese, but rather that most people in my area do, in fact, feel it is cheese. "Cheesy" is one of those phrases like "Power Gamer" or "Over Optimized" that can never be defined objectively and must always be assumed to be subjective.
Save it for when you're trying to prevent a TPK.
Indeed! While this isn't true for all GMs, I find the amount of resistance a GM shows towards questionable tactics or rules interpretations is inversely proportional to the lethality of the encounter. In that, it's kind of like how most people view cannibalism. It's not acceptable, but if it was the only way to survive, we look the other way.
|
|
I am having trouble with the example, and I don't see my objection anywhere else so I will wade in here.
PC wins initiative, readies an attack if attacked, (maybe gets in position first, I don't know)
BBEG goes next, charges, gets to 5' away, PC attacks and 5' steps away, BBEG can't attack and effectively does nothing but move.
Round 2 is where I am having the huge problem.
BBEG now has a higher initiative than PC because PC acted after BBEG in round 1 lowering his initiative to that of BBEG but acting after on the same initiative.
BBEG full attacks the PC.
PC readies an action to attack if attacked.
All odd rounds are like round 1, all even rounds are like round 2.
So in effect you are trading standard attacks for full attacks to nullify half of the BBEG's actions. Not the worst strategy, but not game breaking either.
|
|
Readied actions change your initiative to the count immediately prior to the interrupted characters initiative, not after.
For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
|
|
I am having trouble with the example, and I don't see my objection anywhere else so I will wade in here.
PC wins initiative, readies an attack if attacked, (maybe gets in position first, I don't know)
BBEG goes next, charges, gets to 5' away, PC attacks and 5' steps away, BBEG can't attack and effectively does nothing but move.
Round 2 is where I am having the huge problem.
BBEG now has a higher initiative than PC because PC acted after BBEG in round 1 lowering his initiative to that of BBEG but acting after on the same initiative.
BBEG full attacks the PC.
PC readies an action to attack if attacked.
All odd rounds are like round 1, all even rounds are like round 2.
So in effect you are trading standard attacks for full attacks to nullify half of the BBEG's actions. Not the worst strategy, but not game breaking either.
Actually, this is backwards. The PC is right ahead of the BBEG in initiative order. Ready actions put you ahead of the person you interrupt. Delaying puts you behind.
|
|
Hmm, it seems to be viable against someone without natural reach, I was mistaken.
Though why a BBEG wouldn't simply declare they are moving into the PCs square and attacking is beyond me at this point. Either the PC gets overrun because they worded their ready clause wrong which shuts down the tactic, or they attack, back off, and then get attacked from their former square with the BBEG ending adjacent and shutting down the tactic.
I learned something, so I don't mind that I was wrong before.
|
Either due to the players being aware of a situation, or just using technically legal rules that are just trying to game a combat advantage from a turn based system. Can a GM not allow purely metagame actions.
Two actions I take some exception to. Readying a 5ft step to avoid an attack. Readying a total defense (this getting the benefits while still threatening and take AOOs). Both feel metagamey to me and an artifact of the turn based system. In a real time combat situation, neither would make "sense", in a world with magic that makes sense.
"Readying a 5ft step to avoid an attack. Readying a total defense (this getting the benefits while still threatening and take AOOs)" - You can't ready action to 5 ft. step, but you can ready a standard action & 5 ft. step during your turn if you didn't move (use the move action) during your turn.
This tactic is slightly boring, but people forget that ready action is resolved before opponent's action.
Example:
PC: "I ready my action to enter into total defense and 5 ft. step from enemy if he attempts to attack me."
GM: "Very well. Mook N0.1 approaches you by moving 10 feet and attempts to strike you."
PC: "I resolve my ready action!"
GM: "Very well. Mook N0.1 continues to move 5 additional feet as part of finishing his move action to you and attempts to strike you again."
PC: "..."
The Mook N0.1 in the above example never really managed to roll the dice. If he actually managed a single attack roll, a single 5 ft. step after it, would block his further attacks (if he had any). In some cases you can interupt the flow of enemy actions, but overall, those cases are fairly rare I think.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nitpick: Anyone who says "I don't metagame" either doesn't play or doesn't understand the words they're saying. The *degree* to which you metagame is debatable and subjective. That you do is virtually guaranteed in any game system with mechanics. Even just choosing not to attack the down-but-stable PC when playing an evil/mindless/animal-intelligence NPC is metagaming. The GM has to metagame the most, because he has to craft the entire story with the mechanics in mind.
+1
It is irritating to hear "metagaming" used incorrectly and always with a negative meaning. There is good metagaming. Every time I am playing a character who decides to go along with whatever cockamamie scheme that Pathfinder Society VCs have laid out for us, I am metagaming. "No, that's not what my character would do, but it will advance the plot, so let's do it."
|
|
The action that was interrupted must go forward, otherwise we run into a paradox.
Spring attack means the bad guy moves forward and when he attacks, the other person interrupts and moves out of range. The bad guy still has a remaining move but his attack attempt was invalid so no chance to hit this round.
That's why this tactic is cheesy because a kobold can keep a level 20 barbarian busy as long as there is room to 5 foot step, or the melee barbarian must adjust tactics to ranged. Those rounds are entirely to precious in PFS due to typical short combats.
I'm more comfortable with it than I was yesterday, but still don't like it.
|
Accusations of "cheese" aside,No accusation. That was a statement of fact. And by fact, I don't mean that it is a fact that it is cheese, but rather that most people in my area do, in fact, feel it is cheese. "Cheesy" is one of those phrases like "Power Gamer" or "Over Optimized" that can never be defined objectively and must always be assumed to be subjective.
Save it for when you're trying to prevent a TPK.Indeed! While this isn't true for all GMs, I find the amount of resistance a GM shows towards questionable tactics or rules interpretations is inversely proportional to the lethality of the encounter. In that, it's kind of like how most people view cannibalism. It's not acceptable, but if it was the only way to survive, we look the other way.
Interesting.
trollbill, aren't you one that often argues, vehemently in some cases, for allowing players to play what they want, even if it is an overpowered monstrosity, as long as its within RAW?
How do you reconcile that with frowning upon (to the point of shaming players) who choose to use equally as RAW legal tactics?
|
|
That's why this tactic is cheesy because a kobold can keep a level 20 barbarian busy as long as there is room to 5 foot step
If this was true, I honestly believe that every PC would quit playing if I as a GM did this to them. Hell, it would pretty much auto-negate charge based classes like cavalier.
|
|
Nonmagical Fear effects likewise cause some GMs to explode (e.g., the Rogue Thug archetype, esp. if combined with the compatible Scout archetype (IIRC)). Ditto on Trip or Disarm feats with whips (Serpent Lash, etc).
the problem with the fear mechanics is that they're automatic on very little investiment. The DC simply does not scale, at all, with level and theres no defense for humanoids
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Interesting.
trollbill, aren't you one that often argues, vehemently in some cases, for allowing players to play what they want, even if it is an overpowered monstrosity, as long as its within RAW?
How do you reconcile that with frowning upon (to the point of shaming players) who choose to use equally as RAW legal tactics?
As you pointed out, I am for allowing players to play whatever they want. That is not the same thing as allowing players to play however they want.
The basic premise of organized play is that a character that is legal at one table is legal at all tables. Without that premise, the entire concept of organized play becomes irrelevant. As such, I have always advocated against GMs misusing their authority to violate this premise and rule that certain builds are not allowed at their tables even though that build is society legal. But allowing a potentially abusive build at the table and allowing actual abusive behavior at the table are two different things.
|
|
To me, metagaming is a player of a 1st level character without Knowledge: Religion putting away their preferred greatsword and getting out a blunt weapon to deal with skeletons.
We all do it at some level or another. Hard not to when we're playing in a metaworld with characters that don't really exist.
No one in my area really tries tricks like this as they are usually frowned upon. To a degree, this is because most people feel they are cheesy, but really it's because attempts to use such cheese will invariably create an argument that disrupts the game. And for most people, the desire to have a smooth, fun game outweighs the desire to show everyone some cool metagame trick they discovered.
I would simply recommend talking to the players who do this and explaining its potential problems. While not everyone listens, more do than don't.
I think the most egregious trick I have ever used like this involved a Wall of Force and two successive readied actions.
Can something be cheese and suboptimal at the same time? I can see it being useful in corner cases, but as an ongoing strategy someone not attacking or not casting spells is not going to bode well in many cases.
|
|
To me, metagaming is a player of a 1st level character without Knowledge: Religion putting away their preferred greatsword and getting out a blunt weapon to deal with skeletons.
We all do it at some level or another. Hard not to when we're playing in a metaworld with characters that don't really exist.
The thing is, the GM doesn't have to allow that action. He can tell the player that no, you have no reasonable in-game justification to act out of character for metagame reasons. Yes it's your character and you define what is in character and out of character.. but you've already defined it by having the greatsword as his preferred weapon.
GM can put his foot down on the metagaming and force the player to have his PC fight with the greatsword, at least until circumstances change and the PC without knowledge/religion is warned by someone who DOES have it, or the PC observes the DR in action.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Can something be cheese and suboptimal at the same time? I can see it being useful in corner cases, but as an ongoing strategy someone not attacking or not casting spells is not going to bode well in many cases.No one in my area really tries tricks like this as they are usually frowned upon. To a degree, this is because most people feel they are cheesy, but really it's because attempts to use such cheese will invariably create an argument that disrupts the game. And for most people, the desire to have a smooth, fun game outweighs the desire to show everyone some cool metagame trick they discovered.
I would simply recommend talking to the players who do this and explaining its potential problems. While not everyone listens, more do than don't.
I think the most egregious trick I have ever used like this involved a Wall of Force and two successive readied actions.
To paraphrase Forest Gump, "Cheese is as cheese does."
But, as Jiggy pointed out, what's really important isn't the cheese, but rather how disruptive to the game the cheese is.
|
To me, metagaming is a player of a 1st level character without Knowledge: Religion putting away their preferred greatsword and getting out a blunt weapon to deal with skeletons.
It seems weird to me that three years of Pathfinder training in a world besieged by the Whispering Way wouldn't include "blunt for skinny, sharp for stinky undead." Detailed knowledge? No. But basic knowledge? Well, yes.
First level characters are supposed to be ground-level professionals rather than commoners or aristocrats or experts or other NPC classes. I love to encourage players at my table to roleplay weaknesses and ignorances -- but that's the sort of knowledge (above) that I think that all should have. Not specialized, just something that a professional WOULD get in a three year training course.
DC to identify a Skeleton would be ... 5+CR at my table. and Knowledge checks for DCs below 11 are possible untrained.
So... INT 7 fighter to ID a Skeleton would be something like DC 5 or 6, so he needs to roll a 7 or 8. He still will miss it 30-35% of the time (say 1/3), but then there are other PCs at the table who could easily point out the problem.
IDing a skeleton lets you know that the skeleton is a skeleton (which sounds easy but telling a skeleton from a skeleton champion isn't always going to be obvious). You'd need to make DC 11 to know one useful bit of information about a skeleton - which hopefully the GM would allow to be the DR.