Readying an Action to Smash / Sunder Projectiles


Rules Questions

51 to 62 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Dekalinder wrote:
It was half sarcasm half seriusness. Even if does not makes much sense, the rule is there, so you should abide by it (at least in the rules subforum).

Yes, by all means, abide by it, but it's a totally different situation.

The rule you quoted was for "running characters" (and other running creatures):

Dekalinder wrote:
...since running characters lose their dex bonus to AC.

First point: objects have no DEX bonus to AC so if an object "runs" it loses nothing.

Second point: objects cannot run. (Animated objects are treated like monsters, not objects)

Third point: the rule applies to creatures with a DEX bonus who use their superior DEX to dodge, duck, spin, evade, and generally avoid incoming attacks better than creatures who are less dexterous. Running is an ACTION creatures can take that prevents them from doing those things because they're running as fast as they can. So this is not about higher speed being easier to hit, it's about faster running prevents you from being evasive. Therefore it's not a rule that applies to figuring out the AC of faster moving objects because objects don't take actions in combat.

The actual rule:

Pathfinder SRD, Combat, Full-Round Actions, Run wrote:
You can run as a full-round action. If you do, you do not also get a 5-foot step. When you run, you can move up to four times your speed in a straight line (or three times your speed if you're in heavy armor). You lose any Dexterity bonus to AC unless you have the Run feat.
Dekalinder wrote:
As for
Quote:
f "the more the speed, the more the target is easy to hit" were true, then the opposite is true: the less the speed, the more the target is hard to hit
this is a clear logical fallacy

You should try harder to understand the fallacies before you incorrectly accuse people of using them.

From the very article you quoted:

Wikipedia, Denying the Antecedent fallacy wrote:
The name denying the antecedent derives from the premise "not P", which denies the "if" clause of the conditional premise.

So please show me the "if clause" of your conditional premise?

This particular fallacy occurs when you reverse a conditional argument. Your statement was not conditional.

Dekalinder wrote:
Since fast object lose DEX to AC (+0), and immobile objexcts have 0 DEX (-5), while normal speed object can have anything in between -5 to +infinity you can easly deduct that speed/AC is not a linear correlation.

Again, fast objects don't lose DEX to AC; this rule only applies to running creatures, not objects.

Dekalinder wrote:
OFC, this is just a thought exercise, and has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

Yes, that's true.


Ravingdork wrote:
This is absolutely allowable in the RAW

This doesn't deserve a reply.


Kchaka wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
This is absolutely allowable in the RAW
This doesn't deserve a reply.

And yet it got a reply all the same.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ventnor wrote:
Kchaka wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
This is absolutely allowable in the RAW
This doesn't deserve a reply.
And yet it got a reply all the same.

Quite a few in fact.


Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Azothath wrote:

Zeno's paradox?

really these are just ancient thought experiments about how the world works... and generally just a curious viewpoint.
If you frame them as a math question, then calculus conquers all... (it's that summation as the limit goes to infinity that gets all those infinite points...)

True, and iirc, calculus is how they solved this problem back in 2e.

But of course, 3.0 had to dumb everything down and just use teleporting arrows. :/

curious assertions which I will not refute as I consider these distractions and off topic to the main thread.


ya know... this is a rules thread with a given topic...

D&D3.5 & Pathfinder use a very rough (statistical) model of reality to model both spells and the fantasy world. It's doesn't even come close to the accuracy or precision of newtonian physics circa 1800 (Classical Mechanics). It is what it is. You can try to model a situation better and reduce the error, but the main model has you by the 6 second quantization limit of "the round". So it's good to keep that in mind. Some accommodations have been made for orderly game play and fantastical effects.

yes, you can quote me on that.

<grin>

so you just have to go by what is described in the books and what you understand of physics to help you interpret those rules for the questions and issues that pop up about physical situations. If it's about magic you just have the rules and your personal sensibilities...

Hopefully something in the rules covers the issue and we can all say case closed.

Sometimes it's not covered or not talked about, which usually means "you can't do that".
Sometimes logic compels us to fill in the gaps (as it seems sensible) which puts us in the GM's area. No biggie...

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Azothath wrote:
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
Azothath wrote:

Zeno's paradox?

really these are just ancient thought experiments about how the world works... and generally just a curious viewpoint.
If you frame them as a math question, then calculus conquers all... (it's that summation as the limit goes to infinity that gets all those infinite points...)

True, and iirc, calculus is how they solved this problem back in 2e.

But of course, 3.0 had to dumb everything down and just use teleporting arrows. :/

curious assertions which I will not refute as I consider these distractions and off topic to the main thread.

You are entirely no fun :)


DM_Blake wrote:
Byakko wrote:
Naturally, it's a bit of an oversight for the rules not to include an AC adjustment based on the object's relative velocity.
That's the most important part of this whole discussion - I doubt that anybody is advocating that sundering an arrow if flight is as easy as sundering the same arrow just lying there on the ground.

I've thought about this before, and decided that the simplest way to handle it would be to use the enemy archer's Dex mod in place of the arrow's -5 if you try to hit it while it is in flight, and treating it as a Fine object.

(so if you're a first level archer with 18 Dex trying to hit an incoming arrow shot by your opposite, your target would be AC 22 (+8 size, +4 Dex).

Mostly on a speed/usability basis since it's a simple substitution to make.

Quote:

Furthermore, of nearly equal consideration is the fact that doing this creates an "active defense" scenario. Essentially a "parry" mechanic. The devs (of all versions over 15 years or more) have spoken about why parrying, or any other "active defense" mechanic doesn't exist in the rules.

Suggesting that a fighter could ready an action to "parry", "block", or otherwise actively interfere with an orc swinging an axe at him is fundamentally changing the rules of the game. This is NOT supported, although there are some optional rules out there for it, and a few attempts at classes/archetypes/feats has made situational use of "active defense".

Well, there's actually nothing stopping you from readying an action to sunder an incoming orc axe (other than the orc's CMD). It's already in the rules, it's just generally a really bad tactic unless you're a specialized sunderer, and even then there's not necessarily a good reason to do it instead of just sundering on your turn.

(like readying an action to shoot an arrow out of the air is a really bad tactic unless you have some special ability - even if you succeed, you're trading whole turns for single attacks).


Coriat wrote:
It's already in the rules, it's just generally a really bad tactic unless you're a specialized sunderer, and even then there's not necessarily a good reason to do it instead of just sundering on your turn. ...(like readying an action to shoot an arrow out of the air is a really bad tactic unless you have some special ability - even if you succeed, you're trading whole turns for single attacks).

This statement is not logical. To be true, one must assume the goal is to defeat the other attacker in one-on-one combat with no help. The goal of the tactic could be to stop someone from attacking me. If I sunder on my turn, they have a full round of actions to draw a weapon and smack me down. If I sunder on their turn, they would have lost at least one attack.

That may be the difference between me living or dying.

The rules forum doesn't care if there is a "better" way to do it. While that part is great to add for conversation and advice (even here on the rules forum) the assertion that something is a "bad tactic" is in itself a "bad tactic" because almost every single tactic has its place.


Sundering a projectile is something cool, so I think it should be encouraged.

By RAW, you can't do this, so this is more like a houserule or an advice.

We all know we can deflect arrows as a free action out of turn once per round if you have one hand holding nothing for the price of a feat (+1 other pre-requisite feat), or a magic item that does that like gloves of arrow snatchig, but those only work twice a day. If you get a magic shield, they work every round.

If you want to do the same thing for "free", at least you are having to ready your action to do so, which is a pretty expensive action in my opinion. You won't get to attack your enemy and the triggering action may even not happen, making you waste your action.

I suggest simply rolling against the other guy's attack roll. If you roll higher, you deflect/sunder the projectile/throwing weapon. If you roll the same or lower, the attack follows through. Something like a combat maneuver check.

As for the actual sundering, that would depend on the projectile, so I'll leave the fun of researching that to you. ^^


if you want to sunder a projectile in your home game see Range Modifiers and Speed


Komoda wrote:
Coriat wrote:
It's already in the rules, it's just generally a really bad tactic unless you're a specialized sunderer, and even then there's not necessarily a good reason to do it instead of just sundering on your turn. ...(like readying an action to shoot an arrow out of the air is a really bad tactic unless you have some special ability - even if you succeed, you're trading whole turns for single attacks).
[stuff]... the assertion that something is a "bad tactic" is in itself a "bad tactic" because almost every single tactic has its place.

No, I'm happy to stand by my assertion that spending your turns readying melee sunders without any sunder specialization is generally a really bad tactic.

You'll just take a bunch of AoOs to the face and fail lots of Sunder rolls due to the damage. It's not something to recommend.

51 to 62 of 62 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Readying an Action to Smash / Sunder Projectiles All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.