Dropping 500 for a +4 strength Composite Longbow isn't an issue. It's less than 2% of your WBL. You already admitted you could get to 2d6. So you can get to 2d6+4 for next to nothing.You can't get devs, or other players, on your side with gross exaggerations. Potions of fly, magical items, etc all let you handle the problem.
Except they're giving up a significant chunk of their DPM, considering how much less their to hit and damage will be. Without rigorous investment (feats, enhancement bonuses, proper stat array) attacking with ranged weapons puts you at a significant disadvantage. This by the way already coming from classes with less power to begin with. Whereas wizards have no penalty fighting aerial enemies and can fly with a single low level spell slot.
You don't have to be an "effective" archer to contribute. Any full BAB character can plink one or two arrows a round, for hardly any investment, and cause enemies to make multiple Fly checks just to avoid falling out of the air. Every time you hit a griffon (CR 4), there is a 15% chance it loses 10 feet of altitude.
Fighters, specifically, who have tons of feats and weapon training, seriously, take Quick Draw. And buy a composite longbow. You have now done all the "investing" you'll ever need to be a reasonably effective archer against flying enemies.
If only flying wizards could ALSO be knocked down with arrow fire!
If only the Fly checks weren't so easy to make!
You just ready an arrow to shoot the wizard whenever they cast.
By the time you are high enough level to fight Large or Huge creatures that can also make those Fly checks, you can probably also fly.
...It's a flat DC 10 check. By the time the Wizard can cast Fly, it already gives a +2 bonus (or, debatably, +6).
Most flying creatures also have at least Good maneuverability, and many flying ones still have a decent Dex, so that's also not an issue.
I think you were under the impression the DC was higher?
If you'll look three posts up, you'll notice that I mentioned the griffon (CR 4). With a Fly of +6, it will fail a DC 10 check on a 1, 2, or 3.
The Vampire Sorceress (CR 9) has a Fly check of... +4.
Chimera (CR 7): Fly +2.
So unless you are taking mid to high CRs, many commonly encountered flyers will struggle to make a DC 10 Fly check.
You just ready an arrow to shoot the wizard whenever they cast.
And they activate a staff, and you wasted your entire round. But that's a problem with the held action rules, not with flight.
You just ready an arrow to shoot the wizard whenever they cast.And they activate a staff, and you wasted your entire round. But that's a problem with the held action rules, not with flight.
Well, then you know they have a staff, so that's still some kind of progress. And if they keep doing unexpected things, you can just ready an action for when they take any non-free action.
When it has to do it multiple times in a row. Anyway, the concept is more relevant to the chimera, or the vampire sorceress who can turn into a dire bat.
Except they're giving up a significant chunk of their DPM, considering how much less their to hit and damage will be. Without rigorous investment (feats, enhancement bonuses, proper stat array) attacking with ranged weapons puts you at a significant disadvantage. This by the way already coming from classes with less power to begin with. Whereas wizards have no penalty fighting aerial enemies and can fly with a single low level spell slot.
Dropping 500 for a +4 strength Composite Longbow isn't an issue. It's less than 2% of your WBL. You already admitted you could get to 2d6. So you can get to 2d6+4 for next to nothing.You can't get devs, or other players, on your side with gross exaggerations. Potions of fly, magical items, etc all let you handle the problem.
And again , you can keep repeating this , but very few people will consider a spell that lasts mins/lvl , something even worth comparing with an actual mount that can do it all day long no issues.
When it has to do it multiple times in a row. Anyway, the concept is more relevant to the chimera, or the vampire sorceress who can turn into a dire bat.
Of course a simple change to that statblock (actually giving her Fly ranks...not even full ranks for her level) makes that point entirely moot. Even a single rank gives her a +8 Fly.
I don't know anybody who uses pre-statted vampires and such like that, since they're unique NPCs.
I'll give you the Chimera though.
Well, then you know they have a staff, so that's still some kind of progress. And if they keep doing unexpected things, you can just ready an action for when they take any non-free action.
(1) In most games I'm in, if one PC's job is simply to waste their actions every round solely to make one enemy switch attack modes, that person quickly ends up a dead PC.
(2)
You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger "if she starts casting a spell."
That's a very specific trigger, meaning you can't just say "I ready an attack to be triggered by whatever the person tries to do" (which is essentially what your proposed condition was). Now, I totally think you SHOULD be able to do that, but by the RAW, you can't.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are a number of cool flying mount options in this book there.
Talk to your GM about flying mounts. They can lead to all kinds of awesome game play.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Well, then you know they have a staff, so that's still some kind of progress. And if they keep doing unexpected things, you can just ready an action for when they take any non-free action.(1) In most games I'm in, if one PC's job is simply to waste their actions every round solely to make one enemy switch attack modes, that person quickly ends up a dead PC.
(2)
You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger "if she starts casting a spell."That's a very specific trigger, meaning you can't just say "I ready an attack to be triggered by whatever the person tries to do" (which is essentially what your proposed condition was). Now, I totally think you SHOULD be able to do that, but by the RAW, you can't.
Why do you think you can't do that?
To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition.
One of the things you can do is ready to distract a spellcaster. But it's not the only thing.
If you ready an action for the spellcaster taking any non-free action, they might cast a spell, in which case you might distract them. Or they might move, in which case you simply damage them. Or they might use a supernatural ability, in which case you simply damage them.
You don't have to ready to distract a spellcaster to distract them. What distracts them is taking damage when they are casting.
If you ready an action for the spellcaster taking any non-free action
This is WAY more liberal a condition than any of the examples given in the rules. If your DM lets you get away with that, fine, but the examples in the rules are very specific -- you have to declare what action triggers your readied action, you can't just say "any action" or "any non-free action" or "whatever."
Again, I prefer your interpretation, but there's no conceivable way I can read the actual rules and think it's legit by RAW.
If you ready an action for the spellcaster taking any non-free actionThis is WAY more liberal a condition than any of the examples given in the rules. If your DM lets you get away with that, fine, but the examples in the rules are very specific -- you have to declare what action triggers your readied action, you can't just say "any action" or "any non-free action" or "whatever."
Again, I prefer your interpretation, but there's no conceivable way I can read the actual rules and think it's legit by RAW.
What in the rules forbids it? There is no restriction on how liberal a condition can be, only that is specified one condition.
(Sigh). Rule: "You must choose a specific weapon, such as a longsword."
My interpretation: "Light crossbow would be a specific weapon."
Your interpretation: "Any weapon at all is specific enough!"
Their example of a legitimate trigger condition for a readied action is "If she starts casting a spell." If your interpretation were correct, you wouldn't need to declare a trigger condition at all, because "any non-free action" is as good as saying, pretty much, "I refuse to specify a trigger and reserve the right to just do it whenever." If that were intended, then you wouldn't have to declare a trigger in the first place.
(Sigh). Rule: "You must choose a specific weapon, such as a longsword."
My interpretation: "Light crossbow would be a specific weapon."
Your interpretation: "Any weapon at all is specific enough!"
You can choose any weapon. You can choose any weapon for Weapon Focus. You can choose any trigger and any standard action for Ready.
You can choose any weapon. You can choose any weapon for Weapon Focus. You can choose any trigger and any standard action for Ready.
You can choose any weapon IN ADVANCE. You do not get to pick a different weapon every time you use the Weapon Focus feat.
Likewise, for ready, you can choose any trigger BEFORE it occurs. You can't just wait and see what people do and then say, "Yeah, I choose that."
I think that's abundantly clear, but I "FAQ"ed it nonetheless.
I'm not saying your interpretation is invalid. I just don't see the problem you are seeing.
"Any standard action" isn't "Yeah, that." It means you are committed. Whether they cast a spell or shoot with a bow, you take your action. It is specific. It is triggered more often than "cast a spell," but you are allowed to pick a trigger that is more or less likely to trigger. If you are more likely to trigger, you commit yourself in a greater number of circumstances. If you pick one that is less likely to trigger, you may waste an action.
If you ready an action for two wizards to "take a standard action," and the first one drinks a potion, and the second one casts wish, you are still shooting your arrow at the potion-drinker.
But back to the topic at hand. If you are up against a spellcaster, and you just repeatedly ready to distract them when they cast, so they just never cast a spell... that's a win. Even if you never take an action at all.
If you ready an action for two wizards to "take a standard action," and the first one drinks a potion, and the second one casts wish, you are still shooting your arrow at the potion-drinker.
By your logic, I can ready "a standard action" to occur if "any action is taken." Then I can take any standard action I want in response to anyone doing anything!
I don't see any connection between what you just said and what I said, but maybe you can explain it a little better for me.
There are two things you decide on at the time you ready an action: what you're going to do, and what you're going to do it in response to.
My reading of the rules is that both of these are supposed to be pretty specific.
Your ruling seems to be that the first should be specific, but the second can be extremely vague/general, to the point of not actually specifying anything.
My question is, why don't you also apply that same degree of generality to the action being readied, and not just the trigger?
I see the word "general" being used to mean "broad," and it's not the same thing. I believe the trigger and action both need to be very specific. But the trigger can be specifically broad. Both trigger and action need to be chosen when you take the Ready action. so, if your trigger is "any standard action," and your response is, "I shoot my bow," hopefully shooting a bow is a useful response to whatever action they just took.
RJGrady, what you said would make perfect sense...if you were forced to take your readied actions whenever a trigger occurs.
I'm unsure of the relevance. I already mentioned before you could end up wasting your action if a condition is never triggered or the action isn't useful. Did you have something more to add?
I didn't expect this to be controversial at all. Perhaps this needs to be split to another thread if there is still great contention on this subject.
Tl,dr; both trigger and readied action have to be specific. "Any standard action" is a very specific trigger, there is no mistaking when it has occurred.
"Any standard action" is a very specific trigger, there is no mistaking when it has occurred.
How is "take any non-free action" anywhere near as specific as "fire an arrow from my bow as a standard action"?
That's like saying "eat something" is just as specific as "eat a single stalk of celery weighing 16 grams."
I might have misunderstood. You seemed to be asserting that readying an action in response to a broad circumstance meant committing yourself to act the first time that situation arises.
"Any standard action" isn't "Yeah, that." It means you are committed. Whether they cast a spell or shoot with a bow, you take your action. It is specific. It is triggered more often than "cast a spell," but you are allowed to pick a trigger that is more or less likely to trigger. If you are more likely to trigger, you commit yourself in a greater number of circumstances. If you pick one that is less likely to trigger, you may waste an action.
If you ready an action for two wizards to "take a standard action," and the first one drinks a potion, and the second one casts wish, you are still shooting your arrow at the potion-drinker.
So to use your example, the "take a standard action" trigger would be a straight-up improvement on the "cast a spell" trigger, because you are still free to choose to ignore the wizard that would trigger by drinking a potion and wait to attack the second wizard as they cast wish.
Are we on the same page here?
I'm not sure that we are. I don't think you can ignore a trigger and still take your action. I think the description of Ready an Action precludes it:
Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition.
So in my view, the options would be to shoot the potion drinker, or to not take your readied action.
I don't think you can ready an arrow for "when an enemy casts a spell" and skip the first enemy to cast a spell and shoot the second.
OK, that clarifies things a lot, and isn't as open-ended as it seemed.
But what prevents you from saying, "against anyone who does anything I don't like" -- are you open to pick and choose the event, because you can always say "well, I don't really dislike that one too much, let's see what's next"?
Design Manager
|
It's not easy to shoot down fliers. Even those effected only lose 10' of altitude after a DC 10 fly check. That's not significant unless they're flying at treetop level, and depending on how dense the trees are may not even be significant then.
Anecdotally, it may even just result in them now having cover and/or concealment against any further attacks you make (depending on the exact nature of the terrain), then increasing their altitude on their turn for a Flyby Attack with their breath weapon. Had it happen with a player who thought it was stupid to have the dragon fall before he'd finished his full attack, particularly after the dragon started using the tactic intentionally.
***Edit***
I posted this in a thread discussing balance, but some of it was relevant here. Particularly-
***
Here's a hypothetical- what if, instead of changing anything about the game, Paizo said right up front "Different classes may not be appropriate for all types of games. Here's a list of the classes we have on offer, with a description of the kinds of games they are intended for."
Such a list might say something like:
***
Cavalier: Low and Standard fantasy. Has some abilities that may seem extraordinary in nature. Can participate in and out of combat, but may need assistance from other classes in some aspects of play. Cavaliers in Standard fantasy settings should gain access to flying mount options at 7th level.
****
What would people's thoughts be on such a classification? What if instead of a kind of vague GM fiat, the game just flat out told you "under X circumstances the Cavalier should be granted a flying mount"? Would that make the game better, worse, or would it not change much at all?
It's not easy to shoot down fliers. Even those effected only lose 10' of altitude after a DC 10 fly check. That's not significant unless they're flying at treetop level, and depending on how dense the trees are may not even be significant then.
If you're being shot at by high-altitude enemies above a vast, featureless plain, tactical concerns are a little different than in a normal environment.
Maybe there can be a special feat for mounts where they gain wings? It can be an animal-only type feat. It might require BAB +5, animal type.