And for Crane Wing vs T Rex the supposed invincibility didn't work as claimed, so I'm not terribly surprised this tactic doesn't live up to the advertising either.
This tactic obviously fails in group battles because while you are waiting for the swordsman to take your bait the archer puts three arrows in your skull while the wizard mind controls your buddy and makes him stab you in the back. Almost irrelevant in such a context.
Or succeeds in group battles, because the kobold is really only there to meatshield for the kobold shaman behind him.
It's only relevant to 1v1 duels, so if it doesn't work there, it's no good anywhere.
Remember its a group game. If we were playing warcraft and my 300 pound half orc linemen were getting held up by puny kobolds I'd be annoyed. But Bob is playing Shinytusk, and if Shiny tusk can't even kill one kobold before plucky the archer and inferno the wizard can kill everything else you have a serious problem.
tldr; I've always been somewhat in the middle of the two main camps.
Golden mean is a fallacy. Not a goal :)
I'm about to charge enemy A (15' away), whose readied action let's him move 5' behind cover, and out of the path of my charge.
There's actually no requirement to charge in a strait line. You just normally have to do that because you go strait at them from point A to point B.
This route prevents held actions from being useless (in scenario A, I shouldn't be allowed to drop my melee weapon, quick draw my longbow, and blast on enemy A despite the full round he spent JUST to get away from me). And yet, I shouldn't have to lose an entire turn of what martials are expected to do just because of a readied action. If enemy A was the only one within my melee reach, yeah, I still end up losing an attack roll, but at least I didn't lose my ENTIRE turn, and enemy A didn't risk a readied action just for me to cast a spell instead.
You are potentially losing your entire action.
Hits are supposed to be resolved against armor class and attack rolls between characters, not some bizzare rock paper siccors lizard spock mother may I game of held actions.
How can the fighter kill the kobald with a sword - apart from readying his own action - which in and of itself solves nothing.Here's just one of many many ways. Full defend and then move adjacent to the kobold.
How is that helpful? What if you're the party rogue and not the battle turtle?
You aren't attacking, so the ready doesn't trigger and the kobold doesn't get to step away. Next round, the kobold can ready his attack and step away again, but because you'll start adjacent to him, you can start a full attack, he'll interrupt, attack, 5', but you haven't moved this turn, so you can 5' after him as part of your full attack.
So you need to be level 6 with a full BAB or 2 weapon fight to do that. The kobold moved away in response to your attack. By the dancing kobold hypothesis, you've used your attack. If you don't have a way of attacking twice you can't attack him again because you already used it and automatically whiffed.
More likely, since this is clearly a smart kobold, he realizes that as soon as you ended a turn adjacent to him, his jig was up. As such, he likely attacks normally or does something else on his turn.
It entirely circumvents the to hit mechanics that make up half of the game. This is the d20 system, not the chelaxian lawyer twostep. The dice are supposed to decide when attacks hit and miss, not a bizzar rock paper lizard spock scenario where 5 foot and whack beats attack and withdraw beats wait and attack and a readied attack and five foot step beats...
Ok, fine, held actions only interupt spellcasters, and get you double damage with a reach weapon. They're not the pentultimate melee tactic... so what? If a tactic is marginalized big whoop. The alternative you're talking about marginilizing is MELEE COMBAT... you know. half the game?
And for what? There are no rules telling you you have to do it this way. The rules kinda break and disolve into a timey whimey ball and leave it to the DM as to how to handle it. This is the absolute worst way.
Hits are supposed to be resolved against armor class and attack rolls between characters, not some bizzare rock paper siccors lizard spock mother may I game of held actions.
Wat.
Wat.Hits are supposed to be resolved against armor class and attack rolls between characters, not some bizzare rock paper siccors lizard spock mother may I game of held actions.
Rock paper siccors lizard spock
If the dancing kobold is holding to 5 foot step and whack when you attack him, you "beat" it by walking next to him and not attacking (still takes you too long though)
If the kobold thinks you're going to do that, they can instead ready the trigger action for when you get to them, in which case you go full defense they get a free swing at you anyway.
If the kobold things you're going to attack twice, they can ready a withdrawl action instead.
The game already has a mechanism for all this, its the to hit roll.
Wat.Hits are supposed to be resolved against armor class and attack rolls between characters, not some bizzare rock paper siccors lizard spock mother may I game of held actions.
Rock paper siccors lizard spock
If the dancing kobold is holding to 5 foot step and whack when you attack him, you "beat" it by walking next to him and not attacking (still takes you too long though)
If the kobold thinks you're going to do that, they can instead ready the trigger action for when you get to them, in which case you go full defense they get a free swing at you anyway.
If the kobold things you're going to attack twice, they can ready a withdrawl action instead.
The game already has a mechanism for all this, its the to hit roll.
Oh.
Well, being unsure just how far back this dancing Kobold thing goes back, and looking at your breakdown, my first thought is to Trip him and call it a day.
No. The absolute best solution is to NOT PLAY MELEERS and stick to casters, who do not have to deal with guessing which type of action joe random kobolds think you will use. Then again, if melee combat gets problems due to a cute system glitch, well, the classes that favour it certainly aren't underpowered anyway...
Can we not bring melee/caster disparity into a Rules FAQ request thread?
Can we not bring melee/caster disparity into a Rules FAQ request thread?
And why is that? You don't think it would be easier to avoid the hassle, play a caster, and not have to guess which attack your opponent thinks you will make? To me, it would be all the reason ever needed. If I played a melee character, and the GM put me in that sort of crap ONCE, I would change my character instantly.
Can we not bring melee/caster disparity into a Rules FAQ request thread?And why is that? You don't think it would be easier to avoid the hassle, play a caster, and not have to guess which attack your opponent thinks you will make? To me, it would be all the reason ever needed. If I played a melee character, and the GM put me in that sort of crap ONCE, I would change my character instantly.
This thread is for discussing the relevance and application to the Readied Action rule, and how the system is directly affected by it. "Casters are better than Martials" adds nothing to such a discussion. As a matter of fact, this very topic is applicable to casters just as much as martials. Does a caster waste his standard action when his target's readied action to run behind total cover interrupts his line-of-sight spell? I think it's a safe argument that this is even MORE important for Casters to get a ruling on, since wasting a Standard action to cast a spell is so much more detrimental than wasting a Full-attack action, wouldn't you agree?
I'm loathe to comment on this but, to me, the simplest solution is to not allow the Ready trigger "if s/he starts to attack me".
The defender doesn't really know exactly when the attacker is going to start the strike that is the real attack (as opposed to the probing jabs, thrusts to test defenses, and other things that creatures fighting each other in melee do), because if the defender knew the exact moment of the attack and could react quickly enough to move 30 foot away before it resolved, then their reactions would have to be so good they'd never get hit.
You can have a ready trigger of "when an enemy moves adjacent to me" or "after a creature makes an attack against me", which should cover most needed possibilities but should prevent the problems this thread has described in great detail.
So for your two warriors with longswords standing 15 feet away from each other:
Warrior A wins initiative and readies using the trigger option "when an enemy moves adjacent to me" to attack and 5-foot step back when warrior B moves up (interrupting his move action) but warrior B can keep moving after the readied action, move the extra 5 feet and hit back.
or
Warrior A wins initiative and readies using the trigger option "after a creature makes an attack against me" to attack and 5-foot step back, when warrior B moves up and attacks, warrior A gets use her readied attack, but only after warrior B's attack resolves.
A readied action is specifically intended to interrupt (and resolve before) the action it triggers against. It doesn't make a lot of sense to deny readied action triggers in such a fashion.
Or succeeds in group battles, because the kobold is really only there to meatshield for the kobold shaman behind him.
Just popping in real fast to clarify that this example doesn't really hold water, especially if the proxy people have a problem with is "When I'm attacked." That proxy works for the kobold in question, but not the shaman he's trying to defend, meaning if the PC is stupid enough to engage the melee guy (and not the caster who is effectively defenseless), then he should deal with the consequences of doing what many would consider a poor decision. It's basic tactics when you're a 3rd level adventurer or higher that the spellcasters are the biggest threat, and should also be the squishiest one to deal with, so engaging something that is poised to stop your advance towards itself instead of something that could one-round you and is not in such a protective stance is just bad gameplay tactics.
I mean, the kobold could use the proxy "When the shaman is attacked," but there could certainly be a means for the shaman to be melee-attacked with the proxy being just as much of a whiff, or being detrimental, using the shaman as cover for the readied action, and this also means that the kobold in question is effectively defenseless sans AoOs.
He could also use the proxy "When the shaman or I am attacked," but this means that once the readied action triggers, both he and the shaman are equally defenseless. Some GMs might also impart that they're setting too many proxies (i.e. "When the shaman is attacked" and "When I am attacked" are two separate proxies being combined to try and get the essence of two proxies into a single proxy), meaning that at certain tables, it wouldn't be a valid proxy to set, so in that respect, YMMV.
That being said, I think the 5 foot and Readied Action in itself isn't overpowered, especially when you're vastly outnumbered, it's more that if it's a Reach weapon/disparity, they're getting a free AoO on top of it as well (which, unless you have good Acrobatics or some means to move without provoking, is gonna happen), and that can easily stop the advance of multiples, while still effectively having a "Get out of Jail Free" card.
|
Gonna take an approach I haven't seen this time around (maybe I missed it?)
Wizard vs Archer
-Wizard wins initiative. Readies action to use dimensional step class ability if the archer attacks him.
-Archer fires arrow
-Wizard's readied action goes off, removing him from the archer's line of sight. The archer can no longer choose the wizard as a target.
Question I see in this thread: Does the archer get his standard action back?
My answer: No - there is an arrow flying through the air at a now empty square, and the archer spent an action putting it there.
I don't see how swinging a sword vs 5-foot-stepping would be any different. I don't think it's unclear, and frankly I don't think the tactic is unbalanced. (Though I will admit it could be fairly clunky if repetitively used)
As always I appreciate those who are engaging in polite and thoughtful discussion here (bnw, bbang, etc) and encourage all to do that, rather than whatever alternative.
I'd say yes. You can't pull xena's paradox and blink away from an arrow mid flight. Human reaction times aren't that good.
But a major difference is that when you're swinging a weapon you're expecting people to step back away from you. They can't step back any faster than you can step forward .. actually its easier to go forwar than back if anything. So if someone moves their legs back I move mine forward and stick the sword out a little further. Half of sword fighting is the footwork.
Another difference is that for archer, 1 arrow is one arrow. For melee, you are not limited to one swing of the sword in 6 seconds, its that in six seconds of swinging a sword an inexperienced fighter might hit once whereas a higher level one can make 2, 3, or even 5 of those motions matter.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been following this discussion for a while now, and I've come to the conclusion that this is a hard to solve problem.
- I'm certain that once you commit to an action, that action triggers someone's ready action, and the ready action concludes, that you're still committed to that action. You still execute it if able. You also still lose any actions needed, spells prepared and so forth, even if you're not able to complete the action. The rules for interrupting and countering spells support this.
Imagine: you raise a potion to your lips and are about to drink, when it gets shot apart with a crossbow bolt. You still spent time to almost-drink, so you don't get your standard action back.
- You can't change the action that was interrupted into a different action. You can't change a Charge into a Move + Attack if your enemy steps to the side.
- Using a readied action to foil whatever someone was planning is certainly fair play; like smashing potions, interrupting spellcasters, tripping people trying to get past your Reach weapon and whatnot. Even using a move action to scurry out of the way if someone starts charging at you.
- There are legitimate uses for 5ft steps during readied actions. Like standing still, waiting for a hidden enemy to reveal itself, then 5ft stepping to cut off its line of retreat and attacking.
So there's good reasons to keep the rules as they are. However, there are also abuses:
A kobold is standing 15 feet from a fighter. The fighter has a 40ft speed and moved 15ft closer and wants to attack. The kobold then attacks and takes a 5ft step back. Because the fighter already ended his movement and began his attack, he can't follow up.
Next round the kobold readies again. The fighter takes a Move closer and tries to attack, but the kobold steps away again.
The kobold could keep this up until he runs out of floor. While the fighter has enough movement speed to close with the kobold, due to a glitch in PF's initiative system the kobold can forever keep just out of reach.
This is not "clever", it's just a bug in the system. However, it's very hard to get rid of it without also getting rid of many bona fide uses of the Ready rules.
I can't think of a change to the rules to fix this that won't also damage the bona fide uses. Therefore I'd rather not change the rules, and instead have a "social contract" rule that nobody (GM, players) uses this exploit.
I'd say yes. You can't pull xena's paradox and blink away from an arrow mid flight. Human reaction times aren't that good.Did you mean Zeno's paradox? It's been rather on my mind in this discussion. Then again, it's entirely possible there also exists a Xena's paradox...
- I'm certain that once you commit to an action, that action triggers someone's ready action, and the ready action concludes, that you're still committed to that action. You still execute it if able.
It's the "if able" I tend to raise an eyebrow at.
To me, this is all a matter of timing. If someone readies an action to happen "during" then they can disrupt with full fair play in my eyes. On the other hand, I think taking a 5 foot step very distinctly does not happen "during" but before being attacked. It's a preemptive gesture and arguably thus not a valid choice for a readied action.
I see two ways to rule this:
- Our 5-foot step evasion happens before the triggering action, thus the character attacking can change their actions freely. They are no longer able to perform their expected action and their target has "flinched" prematurely thus ruining their disruption attempt.
- It happens during, and as such the 5-foot step goes off after the first attack roll, and thus the first attack can hit and subsequent attacks in a dedicated full round can be avoided if the attacker does not 5 foot step up to continue.
|
|
- I'm certain that once you commit to an action, that action triggers someone's ready action, and the ready action concludes, that you're still committed to that action. You still execute it if able.
It's the "if able" I tend to raise an eyebrow at.
To me, this is all a matter of timing. If someone readies an action to happen "during" then they can disrupt with full fair play in my eyes. On the other hand, I think taking a 5 foot step very distinctly does not happen "during" but before being attacked. It's a preemptive gesture and arguably thus not a valid choice for a readied action.
I see two ways to rule this:
- Our 5-foot step evasion happens before the triggering action, thus the character attacking can change their actions freely. They are no longer able to perform their expected action and their target has "flinched" prematurely thus ruining their disruption attempt.
- It happens during, and as such the 5-foot step goes off after the first attack roll, and thus the first attack can hit and subsequent attacks in a dedicated full round can be avoided if the attacker does not 5 foot step up to continue.
Well, let's look at how fine-grained you can specify when a readied action should trigger -
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. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. 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.
You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round.
If the kobold specifies that he will take his action "as soon as the fighter is committed to attacking, but before his sword has actualy hit me", then the fighter is screwed.
There's definitely a split-second between the decision to attack a specific target, and actually hitting it. We know this because quite a few Immediate Action abilities require you to activate them when attacked, but before the result of the attack is known.
How is that helpful? What if you're the party rogue and not the battle turtle?How can the fighter kill the kobald with a sword - apart from readying his own action - which in and of itself solves nothing.Here's just one of many many ways. Full defend and then move adjacent to the kobold.
How is it harmful? So you aren't a tank. You'll have to absorb the first hit from the kobold because you moved next to him. But you lost initiative, so you were already going to eat the first hit even if he just charged you instead - you've lost nothing you didn't already lose by your initiative roll. And this way you've got +4-6 AC against him instead of him having +2 to hit.
You aren't attacking, so the ready doesn't trigger and the kobold doesn't get to step away. Next round, the kobold can ready his attack and step away again, but because you'll start adjacent to him, you can start a full attack, he'll interrupt, attack, 5', but you haven't moved this turn, so you can 5' after him as part of your full attack.So you need to be level 6 with a full BAB or 2 weapon fight to do that. The kobold moved away in response to your attack. By the dancing kobold hypothesis, you've used your attack. If you don't have a way of attacking twice you can't attack him again because you already used it and automatically whiffed.
You don't need to be level 6 or with full BAB or with 2 weapon fighting to do it. You can take a 5' step during a standard action attack, not just before or after it. Or you can always still take a full attack action either way, even if you've only got one attack, if you really care about the specific language. But as I said above, the option I presented, full defend then full attack, was only one of many ways to punish this tactic.
But the broad language in the 5' step covers you under most other circumstances as well. You can decide to add a 5' step to your action after the foe's readied action has been resolved, even if you weren't planning on the step before, because the step is not limited to before you start your action (i.e. before the movement you'd have to follow) or after you finish your action (i.e. too late for your own attack). It can happen during your action.
You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.
Taking a 5' step back as part of a ready only works if your foe can't take his own 5' step, i.e., if he's not adjacent to start.
A readied action is specifically intended to interrupt (and resolve before) the action it triggers against. It doesn't make a lot of sense to deny readied action triggers in such a fashion.
The question is why is a readied action specifically designed to interrupt (and resolve before) the action that triggers it?
The main reason (in my opinion) is to allow the interruption and potential disruption of spell casting, or other 'disruptable' actions (like drinking a potion).
To me, some actions are disruptable, some aren't - like making an attack. A readied PC can interrupt a disruptable action because it's needed. Otherwise it isn't needed and the readied action either goes after the other action, or before the other action even starts.
Makes just as much sense to me as immortal kobolds, time loops, or retroactive take backs.
A kobold is standing 15 feet from a fighter. The fighter has a 40ft speed and moved 15ft closer and wants to attack. The kobold then attacks and takes a 5ft step back. Because the fighter already ended his movement and began his attack, he can't follow up.
Next round the kobold readies again. The fighter takes a Move closer and tries to attack, but the kobold steps away again.
The kobold could keep this up until he runs out of floor. While the fighter has enough movement speed to close with the kobold, due to a glitch in PF's initiative system the kobold can forever keep just out of reach.
This is not "clever", it's just a bug in the system. However, it's very hard to get rid of it without also getting rid of many bona fide uses of the Ready rules.
It's really easy to get rid of it and in fact it can be done using the very same Ready rules that create the issue.
Fighter moves up to the kobold and readies an action to follow him if he moves away.
Kobold moves away? Fighter gets to follow. Move on to normal combat.
Kobold doesn't move away? Fighter is adjacent. Move on to normal combat.
So much for "the kobold can forever keep out of reach."
How is it harmful?
It halves another players action economy worse than a slow spell with no save, check, or opposed roll. It more or less evades the entire to hit and armor class system the game is built around.
ou don't need to be level 6 or with full BAB or with 2 weapon fighting to do it.
you do, because the kobold can see that you full defended and moved up to him. He now attacks you and moves 30 feet back. No aoo's for you.
You can defend yourself as a standard action. You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round. Your AC improves at the start of this action. You can't combine total defense with fighting defensively or with the benefit of the Combat Expertise feat. You can't make attacks of opportunity while using total defense.
You can take a 5' step during a standard action attack, not just before or after it. Or you can always still take a full attack action either way, even if you've only got one attack, if you really care about the specific language.
The kobolds turn has rolled around again without his readied action comming up, so its his turn again and he can act normally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ou don't need to be level 6 or with full BAB or with 2 weapon fighting to do it.you do, because the kobold can see that you full defended and moved up to him. He now attacks you and moves 30 feet back. No aoo's for you.
You can defend yourself as a standard action. You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round. Your AC improves at the start of this action. You can't combine total defense with fighting defensively or with the benefit of the Combat Expertise feat. You can't make attacks of opportunity while using total defense.
The kobold made a normal attack and a normal move. No more ready for him. Sure, he got the first hit, but the fighter will get his hit in when he follows. Kobold doesn't get to set up a chain.
I fail to see how this has done anything other than add a round to the duel. The same people get to attack in the same order as if they had just rushed each other to begin with. The only difference is that the fighter got a bonus to AC against the first attack.
You have either
[kobold hits first]
[fighter hits back],
or
[round of messing around]
[kobold hits first]
[fighter hits back]
No substantial change in a duel scenario except the fighter's bonus AC, so the kobold has net lost.
What about changing the rule this way:
If your triggering action is "I am being melee attacked" then any of your readied actions or 5 foot step – which will allow you to get out of threatened area by melee attacker who triggered your readied action – are resolved after the melee attack or attacks (in case of full attack or pounce and rake).
I am not english native and it is past midnight here, so feel free to rephrase my wording and correct my spelling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good point. I misread the first section where it said melee attack. That abolutely is a trigger the readying character could recognise.
This whole issue is rendered moot by a simple declaration from the attacking person:
"While approaching, I wield my weapon in a menacing fashion, searching for an opening, any move I make could be the attack"
The defending person does NOT have a magical ability to discern the difference between random stabs and actual attack rolls, THAT is meta knowledge which cannot be used to trigger readied actions.
At our table, shenanigans like this readied five foot step don't fly...
A 20th level fighter CAN run up to a kobold and smack it with his sword.
There's definitely a split-second between the decision to attack a specific target, and actually hitting it. We know this because quite a few Immediate Action abilities require you to activate them when attacked, but before the result of the attack is known.
Ya know, there's not much really I can say here other than I disagree. I see the same words as you, but my interpretation is that "Assuming he is still capable of doing so," is quite explicate that my ruling would be the correct one. He is no longer capable of the actions, and did not begin them before being disrupted, ergo he is free to take whatever action he wishes.
I think a lot of the problem is we are warping the readied action into this unstable paradox of reacting before a trigger and then claiming the trigger is in progress. It's an unstable paradox which is why I completely disagree.
I fail to see how this has done anything other than add a round to the duel.
If this were a game about duels it wouldn't be that much of a problem. But this is a game about teams of adventurers fighting monsters. Circumventing some kinds of monsters or characters isn't something you should do with a rules interpretation of some VERY gray areas of the rules.
The same people get to attack in the same order as if they had just rushed each other to begin with. The only difference is that the fighter got a bonus to AC against the first attack.
and it took 3 rounds, where the rest of the combat is going on and is probably over.
You have either
[kobold hits first]
[fighter hits back],
or
[round of messing around]
[kobold hits first]
[fighter hits back]
Your fighter needs 30 feet of movement to pull this off. Otherwise he's probably back to square 1.
Gonna take an approach I haven't seen this time around (maybe I missed it?)
Wizard vs Archer
-Wizard wins initiative. Readies action to use dimensional step class ability if the archer attacks him.
-Archer fires arrow
-Wizard's readied action goes off, removing him from the archer's line of sight. The archer can no longer choose the wizard as a target.Question I see in this thread: Does the archer get his standard action back?
My answer: No - there is an arrow flying through the air at a now empty square, and the archer spent an action putting it there.
I don't see how swinging a sword vs 5-foot-stepping would be any different.
I don't think people would argue this wouldn't apply because you could have just as easily readied a Move Action to move behind the Archer (meaning his shot would provoke an Attack of Opportunity from you to disarm the bow), or to just hide behind some readily available cover, thereby nullifying the Archer's attack that way. (Thanks for this example, it actually gives me a very smart tactic that I could potentially use in a ranged combat scenario; readying a Move Action to get into the Archer's face to make him provoke an attack of opportunity for attacking me with his bow is absolutely genius.)
The big hang-up is that people could avoid an attack just by 5-foot-stepping, while still being able to execute a readied action in a manner that they normally wouldn't be able to execute (if you set the proxy "If I'm attacked" when wielding a Reach Weapon, the readied action probably could not be completed with your Reach Weapon unless you 5-foot-stepped, as you otherwise could not properly use your Reach Weapon against the given target). On top of that, wasting an enemy's actions in addition to your two free attacks (don't tell me you forgot Reach Weapons would get a free AoO if they moved through your threatened range), all the while setting you up for an improved Full Attack Option (getting +4 to hit a Prone target), a lot of people would call overpowered.
Of course, we forget the golden rule: Martials can't have nice things. And I'm sure a lot of us can agree, that getting two free attacks, setting up a Full Attack Option, in addition to basically making an enemy waste an entire round of actions is a pretty damn nice thing to have as a Martial. You give us an 18-20/X2 Reach Weapon that can be Finessed.
You can't pull xena's paradox and blink away from an arrow mid flight. Human reaction times aren't that good.
Who says the Wizard was human? He could be an Elf, or even a Drow. Saying that Human reaction times aren't that good, when you can have Humans starting with 20 Dexterity, scaling to upwards of 34+ Dexterity (which quite frankly emulates meta-human agility and finesse), combined with class abilities that could outright nullify them being inside a giant inferno of an explosion, isn't really much of an argument when even 1st level characters are beyond real life peak-human capabilities, and are certainly more than what an average human could hope to accomplish.
In addition, using that sort of realism in a combat like Pathfinder, which was designed to be abstract of such realisms, doesn't really serve much of an argument either.
If this were a game about duels it wouldn't be that much of a problem. But this is a game about teams of adventurers fighting monsters. Circumventing some kinds of monsters or characters isn't something you should do with a rules interpretation of some VERY gray areas of the rules.I fail to see how this has done anything other than add a round to the duel.
There's little point to using this tactic in a group vs group battle, so this objection doesn't matter. If you have three friends, have one of them shoot the guy who tries this in the face and get on with your life. Guy ends up giving up his action to ready, only to die, when he could have just stabbed you and accomplished something.
Or maybe all that happens is the sword swinger you were aiming for decided to attack a different kobold, because hey, in a group battle, you can't predict who he's going to attack. You're still alive, but you spent your turn standing there slackjawed instead of fighting.
Just as easily can turn into a net loss for team ready as a net gain.
If you're a single monster, of course, the tactic is sheer suicide, because you're giving up 100% of your team's actions to try to foil 25% of their team's.
If you're a group encounter, you misjudge who the sowrdsman will attack, and end up just fruitlessly throwing away your team's actions.
If there's no incentive to adopt the tactic in a group battle, it's not really a concern. Certainly not enough to justify trying to rewrite the broader readied action rules.
There are TONS of points of using it in a group battle. Your battle turtle can stop a charge dead with 100% accuracy, force melee to hold off for a round while the party range plugs away, automatically render round one of a big chomp or moving non pounce monster entirely superfluous, and basically pause the bad guy any time any time they have to move.
The threat of this doesn't even need to be used. The above kobold could be waiting to dodge an attack, or could be waiting till you stop moving , or just until you enter their space.
If there's no incentive to adopt the tactic in a group battle, it's not really a concern. Certainly not enough to justify trying to rewrite the broader readied action rules.
There is no need to re write them, at all, because nothing has been written as to what happens when your action drops into a timey whimy ball.
Under the dancing kobold interpretation, the kobold is reacting to an event that never happened. He was never attacked. His attack and 5 foot steps come "before" an action that don't exist in the time stream
Under the takebacksies interpretation the kobold reacted to something that didn't happen, or happened after he went before it.
You need a blue telephone booth either way.
If the kobold specifies that he will take his action "as soon as the fighter is committed to attacking, but before his sword has actualy hit me", then the fighter is screwed.
And this is a problem. The fighter committed to attacking the kobold when he declared "I move and attack the kobold." Ergo, the kobold should try to attack before the fighter closes, take his 5 foot step, and then be move attacked by the fighter. Right?
Seriously, it is quite common that the attacker in this situation doesn't care about being hit once. That is what AC and hp is for. It is a screwy tactic, especially since it will work even against someone who knows it's coming. What I don't see is why the ready action gives you such a massive flexibility in declaring conditions, while the normal actions in combat have to be so strictly interpreted.
"I will attack anyone who comes adjacent and isn't using the full defense option, is wearing better armor than hide, and isn't wearing my tribe's colours."
"I will attack anyone who comes adjacent that I or one of my team mates have hit with a total AC making me need to roll 12 or worse to hit."
"I will attack anyone who comes close and attacks me with a weapon weighing more than 4 lbs, or 6 lbs if it's a two-handed weapon."
...are all fine according to RAW, but...
"I will run up to that kobold, no matter what he does to me, and hit him."
...is apparently off the table.
Your difficulty appears to be that you are relating how things work in reality to how things work in the game. And you simply cant do that.
Except we are talking about a game that's very nature is being king of the simulation roleplaying genre and who's rules are a vague mess guided by, "How does it work in reality?" It's practically rule 1 following rule 0.
Under the dancing kobold interpretation, the kobold is reacting to an event that never happened. He was never attacked. His attack and 5 foot steps come "before" an action that don't exist in the time streamUnder the takebacksies interpretation the kobold reacted to something that didn't happen, or happened after he went before it.
I'm actually not at all clear what distinction you are making between these two things here. By my reading of it these are both the things being advocated as allowable by you (and others) - which means I'm surely misunderstanding what you are saying here.
Kobold reacting to an event that never happened: I've been saying an event started, the readied action triggered off of that event, the event completes (possibly with no effect). You cannot trigger a readied off of an event that never occurs.
Takebacksies interpretation: Again, if an event started, triggering a readied action, then the event completes (possible with no effect) - there is no taking back your started action.
e.g., Both of those scenarios seem to be a problem with the absolute insistence that the readied action takes place before the triggering action. Despite examples of things like shoot the first thing through the door that shows readied actions don't actually trigger before the start of game defined actions - but rather the readied action is resolved when certain 'events' occur in the game.
Can you please clarify?
Pathfinder is not at its core a simulationist roleplaying game. The combat system is extremely abstract.Your difficulty appears to be that you are relating how things work in reality to how things work in the game. And you simply cant do that.Except we are talking about a game that's very nature is being king of the simulation roleplaying genre and who's rules are a vague mess guided by, "How does it work in reality?" It's practically rule 1 following rule 0.
All game systems are abstract. I fail to see the relevance.
Caith: It is not about reality. It is about the interpreted flexibility of readied actions vs the same for actions declared as part of one's round. I really thought I was being clear enough about that. I even gave examples. And no, I do not have a "difficulty". Please do not keep implying that I do. I do not have any sort of reading disability, understanding disability or similar. Not understanding the situation is NOT why I don't agree with you. I don't agree with you because your interpretation of readied actions leads to ridiculous consequences. Not because it then doesn't match up to reality, but because the game system itself under that interpretation becomes a stupid guessing game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All game systems are abstract. I fail to see the relevance.Pathfinder is not at its core a simulationist roleplaying game. The combat system is extremely abstract.Your difficulty appears to be that you are relating how things work in reality to how things work in the game. And you simply cant do that.Except we are talking about a game that's very nature is being king of the simulation roleplaying genre and who's rules are a vague mess guided by, "How does it work in reality?" It's practically rule 1 following rule 0.
rolemaster?
I'm actually not at all clear what distinction you are making between these two things here. By my reading of it these are both the things being advocated as allowable by you (and others) - which means I'm surely misunderstanding what you are saying here.
I am very much anti dancing kobold interpretation. I do not believe that you can cancel an attack and make it automatically miss with a readied action.
Kobold reacting to an event that never happened: I've been saying an event started, the readied action triggered off of that event, the event completes (possibly with no effect). You cannot trigger a readied off of an event that never occurs.
The attack never happens. The fighter never rolls. There's nothing to roll against.
That you can make a 20th level fighter swing to an empty square with no bluff check, opposed roll, special ability or class ability is kinda nuts.
Takebacksies interpretation: Again, if an event started, triggering a readied action, then the event completes (possible with no effect) - there is no taking back your started action.
There's little indication that most events have a start and an end. Spellcasting does, but spellcasting came with chapters of rules for concentration checks counter spells and interrupts.
Both of those scenarios seem to be a problem with the absolute insistence that the readied action takes place before the triggering action.
Because thats one of the few sure things in the rules.
The action occurs just before the action that triggers it
Despite examples of things like shoot the first thing through the door that shows readied actions don't actually trigger before the start of game defined actions - but rather the readied action is resolved when certain 'events' occur in the game.
Can you please clarify?
My stance is that the rules leave us with a timey whimey ball that the DM has to sort out on a nearly case by case basis. Exploiting the timey whimey ball to take the place of a a mechanic as central to the game as an attack roll and armor class indicates that someone is probably misusing the timey whimey ball.
Raw is impossible. There isn't any.
The timey whimy ball is unavoidable: it happens with many readied actions (your xbow at the door example) Demonstrating that the rules lead to a timey whimey is thus kinda pointless.
I'm actually not at all clear what distinction you are making between these two things here. By my reading of it these are both the things being advocated as allowable by you (and others) - which means I'm surely misunderstanding what you are saying here.
I am very much anti dancing kobold interpretation. I do not believe that you can cancel an attack and make it automatically miss with a readied action.
Kobold reacting to an event that never happened: I've been saying an event started, the readied action triggered off of that event, the event completes (possibly with no effect). You cannot trigger a readied off of an event that never occurs.The attack never happens. The fighter never rolls. There's nothing to roll against.
That's not the view point though. The attack happens, it just becomes an automatic miss.
EDIT: My confusion on your dancing kobold option was your stating that the attack never happened.
Because thats one of the few sure things in the rules.The action occurs just before the action that triggers it
JB seems to disagree with that being how it actually works. (He is talking about AoO's here, but functionally AoO's and readied actions are very similar in how they interrupt another players turn).
He also (at least at one point) felt readied actions denying another character their actions was a perfectly legitimate use of readied actions.
The timey whimy ball is unavoidable: it happens with many readied actions (your xbow at the door example) Demonstrating that the rules lead to a timey whimey is thus kinda pointless.
I find it odd that you dislike the timey whimey ball, yet it is your reading of the rules that leads to it, while the other reading does not.
*headscratch*
I don't see the disagreement there
. The time issue really is just to keep matters simple (as many have pointed out). Technically, the AoO occurs as the event that provokes it is taking place, but since we can't have "middle ground" conditions, they are pushed to before to keep things straightforward. This is the only way it makes sense for spellcasting, movement, and, in this case, standing up and trip.
*headscratch*
I don't see the disagreement there
. The time issue really is just to keep matters simple (as many have pointed out). Technically, the AoO occurs as the event that provokes it is taking place, but since we can't have "middle ground" conditions, they are pushed to before to keep things straightforward. This is the only way it makes sense for spellcasting, movement, and, in this case, standing up and trip.
Let me emphasis a different portion of the sentence.
He's saying, sure a strict reading of the RAW is that it goes before, but don't run it that way when it doesn't make sense (shoot the first thing through the door). There is also an implied, no you can't change your action afterwords, because the readied action occurs while the other action is taking place (which is really what this whole thread is about).
The difference BBangerter is that in the triplock case Jason was commenting on the character having to spend their actions tripping the person. That is one person nullifying what another does. he is ok with that because it takes a reasonable amount of time.
In our case here the kobald/wizard/archer still gets to attack/cast their spell/shoot. It is the 5 ft step that prevents the attack. The five foot step that invalidates the other characters action. It is all very well saying they ready action may not do anything but in most times readied actions happen you can reasonably guess.
i think Jason makes a good point - that the actions should happen at the same time. Because of the Inherant contradiction of something being 'triggered' by something that goes after it. I am going to interpret that to mean they go at the same time...
- The kobald does get to make his attack and take the 5ft step
- but simultaneously the attackers attack happens before the step. (logically if there is time for the kobald to attack in melee there must be time for the attacker to attack as well)
- As per the rules if this attack prevents the attacker's action - hold person, sundering potion, tripping then that affects the attacks action.
There are holes in this interpretation - namely if the trip or hold person spell can interrupt why can't the 5ft step. But it is balanced by the argument that if the kobald can attack why can't the fighter. I absolutely reject the alternative - the readying for the ready argument that has been made by other in these posts - that really is daft and stretches both reality and gameplay in very silly ways.
I find it odd that you dislike the timey whimey ball, yet it is your reading of the rules that leads to it, while the other reading does not.
This is something deeper into the rules than the simple yes/no and is on a different axis from the dancing kobold question, and I don't think the rules go that deep.
What you have is a situation where the fighter MUST take an invalid action. He must make a melee attack at someone that is no longer in melee range. There's no rules for that. If the fighter is making his attack roll then the kobold is still in the square, and the hit is resolved via the intended mechanic of to hit vs ac. But that never happens because the kobold isn't there.
The difference BBangerter is that in the triplock case Jason was commenting on the character having to spend their actions tripping the person. That is one person nullifying what another does. he is ok with that because it takes a reasonable amount of time.
Trip locking doesn't, necessarily, invalidate another characters actions. So that is not the same thing. If you are tripped, you can still make a melee attack (at a penalty), you can still move as a crawl (though only 5').
Also, his quote about readied actions invalidating another characters actions is the second quote, not the one about trip locking.