I'm confused by what the point of the Strike Back feat is supposed to be. Its benefit is: "you can ready an action to make a melee attack against a foe that attacks you with a melee weapon, even if that foe isn't within your reach". Okay, how is this not something everyone can do anyway? The Ready an Action action itself never talks about there being some kind of lack of permission to designate a character as the readied-action-triggering character just because they're outside your reach, such that Strike Back exists to give you said permission.
But so far as I can tell based on the feat's existence, this is supposed to be the chain of actions.
What are you trying to do? Ready an action.
To do what? Make a melee attack.
Against whom? That guy right there.
Triggered by what? When he makes a melee attack against me.
Is he currently (that is to say, on your turn right now, not talking about the triggering-character's next upcoming turn) within your reach? No.
Do you have Strike Back? If yes, then you may ready this action; if no, then pick something else.
Was this something missing from the Ready an Action entry? Or is the Strike Back feat supposed to be allowing you to make your readied melee attack against the triggering character, even if the triggering character makes his melee attack from outside your reach, such as with a reach weapon? I found one old thread that seemed to suggest that that's how Pathfinder's Strike Back feat (which bore a similar phrasing) was supposed to work, so maybe that's the thinking here. But if so, then both really need to be revamped, because that is not what that feat says in either game.
If that were how we're supposed to read this feat, then Strike Back's benefit would have to be phrased as: "If you readied an action to make a melee attack against a foe making a melee attack against you and the foe triggers your readied action with a melee attack while remaining outside your reach, you may nevertheless make your readied melee attack against that foe."
See the difference? One talks about what you can do while it's your turn and you're trying to establish the readied action, while the other talks about what you can do on the readied action itself on the foe's turn.
So what is supposed to be going on with this feat?
Yes, supposedly you can't make a readied attack against an enemy outside your reach, even if it puts a bit of itself inside your reach by attacking you. Hence the feat.
|
Yes, supposedly you can't make a readied attack against an enemy outside your reach, even if it puts a bit of itself inside your reach by attacking you. Hence the feat.
"Supposedly"? Of course you can't hit something outside your reach... That's exactly what this thing does. If something colossal hits you from 20 feet away, then you can now ready to attack them. This lets you get close enough to hit them without provoking via movement--of course this doesn't help if they attack someone else, but it's not a bad option.
Yes, supposedly you can't make a readied attack against an enemy outside your reach, even if it puts a bit of itself inside your reach by attacking you. Hence the feat."Supposedly"? Of course you can't hit something outside your reach... That's exactly what this thing does. If something colossal hits you from 20 feet away, then you can now ready to attack them. This lets you get close enough to hit them without provoking via movement--of course this doesn't help if they attack someone else, but it's not a bad option.
But that's just it. It doesn't do that. It gives you a benefit when it is still your turn and you are readying the action (you gain the additional option of selecting that foe to melee against even though they, while it is still your turn and before they've done anything, are not next to you), and not when it is not your turn and you are in the process of taking your already-readied, now-triggered action.
I mean, there are two steps to a readied action, yes? Readying the action, which is a thing you do on your turn, and taking your triggered readied action, which happens afterwards. Which does this feat talk about? "You can ready an action...", to me, seems to convey that whatever benefit it provides is provided to step 1 of that process and has nothing to do with step 2, which is when your foe is actually making his attack and you are allegedly striking back.
So you're saying the feat should be rewritten to the way I phrased it? Such that it, in fact, is not talking about readying an action at all, but instead is providing a benefit to the act of taking your triggered action?
For full clarification it should have added "...when it attacks you and triggers your readied action." to the end of the feat. That's clearly the intent of the feat.
Okay, let's try that. "You can ready an action to make a melee attack against a foe that attacks you with a melee weapon, even if that foe isn't within your reach {when it attacks you and triggers your readied action}".
There's still a problem with that phrasing, in that it modifies what you can do when you ready the action as opposed to when you're taking your triggered, readied action.
Let me put it this way. Let's say it's my turn. I am thirty feet away from a foe (and remain thirty feet away at the end of my turn), and I have a reach weapon. The foe only has daggers, is not a creature with exceptional reach, has no potions or serums of enlarging or growth rays or any means of somehow acquiring more reach than me; suffice it to say, for the purpose of this example, let's say I'm guaranteed to have more reach than my foe. I have a standard action and I want to use it to make a melee attack against that foe (the one who is still thirty feet away and outside my reach when I'm taking the standard action to ready this action) if he makes a melee attack against me. Let's say that for whatever reason I'm anticipating that he's going to come up to me to make his attack.
If I don't have Strike Back, can I still ready that action in that scenario or not? Remember: my foe is outside my reach [u]when I'm readying the action[/u] but he will be within my reach [u]when he actually makes the attack that triggers my action[/u]. According to Strike Back (even with your revision), isn't the answer still "no"? The feat is still talking about what you can do [u]when you're readying your action[/u], not what you can do [u]once your readied action has been triggered[/u]. Based on the feat's existence, not having the feat means that if my foe isn't within my reach [u]when I'm readying my action[/u], then I cannot ready my action to melee attack if I am likewise melee attacked.
Is there really no rules distinction between the act of readying an action and the act of taking a triggered readied action?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is probably going to come off the wrong way, but do you actually not understand the intent of the feat, or are you just rules lawyering for the sake of rules lawyering?
Guessing the latter (in which case, feel free to post your own version that takes around the same word count instead?) but willing to help try to explain again if it's the former.
Tectorman, I am going to try to help you out by asking questions
If the space an monster is actually occupying is outside of your reach, and you try to ready an attack to hit him, would you be allowed to him if you did not have this feat?
Answer this and I will move to question number two depending on how you reply.
The MAIN purpose of the Strike Back feat is so you can reciprocate a melee attack against enemy who has greater reach than the player does.
WITHOUT the feat, a PC could ready an action to melee attack the enemy (who has greater reach) when enemy makes a melee attack, but it wouldn't do any good as the PC's melee attack lacks the reach to hit enemy.
WITH the feat, PC could ready an action to melee attack the enemy (who has greater reach) when enemy makes a melee attack, and then immediately after the enemy's attack gets to make a melee attack and strike the enemy despite the enemy being further than reach. Doesn't matter what weapon the enemy is using, the feat lets you make the melee attack roll as a readied action on enemy's turn, and if you beat enemy's EAC/KAC, you damage the enemy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I genuinely don't understand where your mental block regarding this feat is coming from. The wording isn't perfect, but the intent is absolutely clear. Since it seems your having a really hard time with this, let me lay it out for you.
Strike Back
Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against a foe that attacks you with a melee weapon, even if that foe isn’t within your reach.
This does not change how readied actions work, or even give you access to a new readied action. It simply broadens the trigger parameters when you make the readied action of "I ready an action to melee anything that makes a melee attack against me."
Without Strike Back if an enemy makes a melee attack against you with reach greater than yours, your readied attack trigger doesn't go off because you are not allowed to attack an enemy who is beyond your reach.
However, with Strike Back, your own reach is no longer a factor when retaliating against melee attacks with a readied action. Whether it's with five feet of reach or forty, if an enemy makes a melee attack against you and you have Strike Back, your ready action trigger occurs.
Could the wording be a little better? Sure. "When readying an action to make a melee attack against a foe who melees you, your attack triggers even if they are beyond your reach."
However, the RAI of the feat is crystal clear, thanks to the flavor text above the feat: You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you. Do you really need more than that to understand what's happening here?
Tectorman, I am going to try to help you out by asking questions
If the space an monster is actually occupying is outside of your reach, and you try to ready an attack to hit him, would you be allowed to him if you did not have this feat?
Answer this and I will move to question number two depending on how you reply.
If I did not know this feat existed, I would say "yes, I should be allowed to ready an attack to hit him if he tries to hit me" and where he happens to be (next to me, outside my reach, or on the opposite side of the dungeon) should have zero bearing on the subject. The Ready an Action action does not include any language introducing such a restriction so I would not assume its existence.
For example, I didn't know until I read this feat in Starfinder that it existed in Pathfinder with the same wording (I guess I glossed over it back then), so I assumed that in Pathfinder, one could ready any action in response to any trigger regardless of where the readied-against foe is.
With the existence of this feat, I have no idea. Either the feat does something (broadens the range of circumstances in which I can ready an action to make a melee attack if I'm melee attacked to include "even if that foe isn't within my reach") or it's literally a waste of ink on a page taking up space to no purpose giving me the ability to do what everyone and their grandmother can already do anyway, based on the text of the Ready an Action action itself. And what I would never have read into the feat (which begins with the phrase "you can ready an action...") is take it to be in reference to when I'm doing something else (taking an already-readied, now-triggered action).
I mean, if I'm reading a class feature that says "you can take a standard action to Blah Blah Blah", I do not read that as "okay, it says standard action so they must have meant something else instead".
This is probably going to come off the wrong way, but do you actually not understand the intent of the feat, or are you just rules lawyering for the sake of rules lawyering?
Guessing the latter (in which case, feel free to post your own version that takes around the same word count instead?) but willing to help try to explain again if it's the former.
I'm trying to push for a revision of the language such that it's no longer confusing, while also trying to hammer home what it actually does. I know in general terms what the apparent intent of this feat was supposed to have been because of this thread, not anything inherent to the text of the feat itself. Other people reading that book may not have that benefit and in so doing be as confused as I was (and still am).
And I already suggested a revision in the OP.
I genuinely don't understand where your mental block regarding this feat is coming from. The wording isn't perfect, but the intent is absolutely clear. Since it seems your having a really hard time with this, let me lay it out for you.
Strike Back
Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against a foe that attacks you with a melee weapon, even if that foe isn’t within your reach.This does not change how readied actions work, or even give you access to a new readied action. It simply broadens the trigger parameters when you make the readied action of "I ready an action to melee anything that makes a melee attack against me."
Without Strike Back if an enemy makes a melee attack against you with reach greater than yours, your readied attack trigger doesn't go off because you are not allowed to attack an enemy who is beyond your reach.
However, with Strike Back, your own reach is no longer a factor when retaliating against melee attacks with a readied action. Whether it's with five feet of reach or forty, if an enemy makes a melee attack against you and you have Strike Back, your ready action trigger occurs.
Could the wording be a little better? Sure. "When readying an action to make a melee attack against a foe who melees you, your attack triggers even if they are beyond your reach."
However, the RAI of the feat is crystal clear, thanks to the flavor text above the feat: You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you. Do you really need more than that to understand what's happening here?
Sorry, but your revision still creates the same issue in that it talks about the act of readying an action when it's your turn, not the act of taking your readied action when the foe triggers it on his turn. Reading your revision, I'm still inder the impression that Strike Back is supposed to come into play (or not) when it's my turn.
That is to say, since it says "when readying an acton...", I would take that to mean that I have to, on my turn when I'm readying the action, declare that I intend to use Strike Back to hit the foe if he hits me outside my reach. Meaning that if he, for whatever reason, walks up to within my reach and attacks me from there, I get no readied action (since I had to specify the use of Strike Back beforehand). Same thing if I have Strike Back but didn't specify its use when it was my turn while I was readying the action, and my foe melees me from outside my reach.
Is it intentional that your revision of Strike Back is supposed to be decided when it's my turn and I'm readying the action, such that I might inadvertantly outmaneuver myself? If not, then the feat needs to get rid of "when readying an action" or "you can ready an action".
From what I can tell, the intent seems to be that a character with this feat should be able to say "I'm readying an action to melee that guy if he attacks me". If the guy attacks with a melee attack from outside my reach, I still get to use my readied action thanks to Strike Back. And if he instead decided to melee attack me from inside my own reach, Strike Back does nothing but I still get my readied action through normal means.
The difference is that that event happens AFTER I've readied my action and WHEN I'm taking my triggered readied action. I.e., the act of readying an action has nothing to do with nothing and is a complete nonfactor.
Or at least, I think it's supposed to be a nonfactor. Everyone else keeps leaving "when readying an action" in the text so maybe you are supposed to risk inadvertantly outmaneuvering myself. I don't know. Hence the thread.
Teterman the rules only allow you to hit someone if you can attack the square they are standing in. That has been the rule for about 17 years now. The words used in 3.X were ported over to Pathfinder and then to Starfinder for large parts of the book.
The strikeback feat may not be worded perfectly, but the intent is for you to be able to hit attack them if they attack you by attacking their limbs.
So now do you not know the intent of the feat, or do you have a problem with the wording with regard to readied attacks?
edit: There are many rules that are not written as well as they could have been. As an example there was a feat that "as written" said you could ignore all penalties, but it only was intended for you to ignore Two weapon fighting penalties.
I am not saying that you should not push for better wording when you find something that is not written to match intent. If you know the intent, but don't like the wording it helps if you are clear on the issue of the wording being wrong.
Teterman the rules only allow you to hit someone if you can attack the square they are standing in. That has been the rule for about 17 years now. The words used in 3.X were ported over to Pathfinder and then to Starfinder for large parts of the book.
I... was never in doubt about that. Nor am I conceptually adverse to the idea of attacking a larger creature's limbs or its hands on its longer weapon as it attacks you. It's just that Strike Back as written doesn't contribute anything towards that goal.
The strikeback feat may not be worded perfectly, but the intent is for you to be able to hit attack them if they attack you by attacking their limbs.
So now do you not know the intent of the feat, or do you have a problem with the wording with regard to readied attacks?
edit: There are many rules that are not written as well as they could have been. As an example there was a feat that "as written" said you could ignore all penalties, but it only was intended for you to ignore Two weapon fighting penalties.
I am not saying that you should not push for better wording when you find something that is not written to match intent. If you know the intent, but don't like the wording it helps if you are clear on the issue of the wording being wrong.
Am I now clear on the intent? Let's see.
- When I'm taking my standard action to ready an action to melee someone who melees me, do I need to specify that I'm invoking Strike Back at that point?
- I.e., do I, while it is still my turn and I'm in the process of readying the action, have to specify which manner of melee attack I'm expecting to be subject to (from my foe on his turn while he's outside my reach or while he's within my reach)?
- That is to say, does Strike Back have anything at all to do with the act of readying an action (that thing you do on your turn that uses a standard action), distinguished from taking a triggered readied action (the thing you're doing in response to whatever triggering condition arose afterwards)?
- Is taking a triggered readied action the same thing as readying an action?
- Can you ready an action when it isn't your turn?
- Can you spend a standard action when it isn't your turn (typically, not including things like the 12th level improvement of the Envoy's Improved Hurry improvisation)?
I am under the impression that the answer to all of those questions is or is supposed to be "no". If that is the case, then yes, I would say that I know what the intent was supposed to be.
My problem now is that the text of the feat conveys none of that. The kicker is the reference to readying an action. The feat starts with "you can ready an action..." making everything else in that sentence a descriptive clause clarifying that action, the act of readying an action (which, as we've already established, is that thing you're doing when it's still your turn and takes a standard action to do), not the act of taking a triggered readied action. That's what needs to change. After all, if this feat isn't supposed to have anything to do with readying an action, why is that what the feat seemingly provides a benefit to?
"When you've readied an action to make a melee attack against a foe that attacks you with a melee weapon, you can make your attack even if the foe triggers your action while outside your reach."
"You can ready an action to make a melee attack against a foe that attacks you with a melee weapon. If your foe triggers this action while outside your reach, you may make your attack anyway."
You know, something to communicate that this feat is supposed to pertain to the triggered action itself, not the act of readying the action to be triggered in the first place.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Feats like this that limit options aren't good options. They're bad game design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RD you couldn't do what the feat allows without the feat. You've always had to be able to attack the location that the creature/opponent occupied.
Tectorman I will answer your questions when I get home since it might require a long reply.
When I'm taking my standard action to ready an action to melee someone who melees me, do I need to specify that I'm invoking Strike Back at that point?
Possibly, but that depends on how strict your GM is. The clearer you are the better the chance you have of getting the result you want. Personally if I know you have the strikeback feat and you said "If the monster(with reach) attacks me, I want to attack it with my readied acction". Now since the only way to do this is with the strike back feat making you say the name of the feat is overkill.
I.e., do I, while it is still my turn and I'm in the process of readying the action, have to specify which manner of melee attack I'm expecting to be subject to (from my foe on his turn while he's outside my reach or while he's within my reach)?
When you ready the action you have to state what triggers it. What you can not do is say "my readied action goes off now".
You can say when I am attacked in melee by the monster(with reach), and that would trigger it on the first attack. On the other hand if you know the monster will likely try to grapple or trip you then you can call out that specific type of attack, however if you just call out a general attack, then the first attack will trigger it.
That is to say, does Strike Back have anything at all to do with the act of readying an action (that thing you do on your turn that uses a standard action), distinguished from taking a triggered readied action (the thing you're doing in response to whatever triggering condition arose afterwards)?
I don't really understand this question.
Is taking a triggered readied action the same thing as readying an action?
No. You can ready the action, and it may never go off, but the act of readying the action is what burns up your standard action, even if the trigger never happens, so if you ready an action to use Strike Back, and the monster cast a spell you can't just change your mind and get your standard action back.
You can prepare to take an action when a certain trigger occurs by using a standard action.
As you can see readying uses the standard action. The act that it is attached too just goes off at a later time.
Can you ready an action when it isn't your turn?
No. It requires a standard action, and you can only take standard actions when it is your turn unless you have some special ability that allows you to get around this rule. So far nothing I know of allows this.
Can you spend a standard action when it isn't your turn (typically, not including things like the 12th level improvement of the Envoy's Improved Hurry improvisation)?
No, as answered above.
Strike Back
You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach.
It seems the clarity issue here is that the benefit of the feat is in the flavor text, not in the Benefit text.
It needs to be read as:Benefit: You can ready an action to (make a melee attack (even if the foe is outside of your reach) against any foe that attacks you in melee).
And not as:
Benefit: Even if the foe is outside of your reach, you can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee.
It would be clearer if it said:
Benefit: When you ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, you can perform this readied attack even on foes that are outside of your reach.
(The other issue, of course, is that it's excessively restrictive to only allow someone to hit a huge monster in the face while it's trying to bite you if you have BAB 11 and a feat.)
(The other issue, of course, is that it's excessively restrictive to only allow someone to hit a huge monster in the face while it's trying to bite you if you have BAB 11 and a feat.)
I don't know what the BAB is in the Pathfinder version, but I do agree that 11 BAB is too much. Since you have to use a readied action, which are very limiting I would not have even had a BAB limitation.
I would rather take the AoO to get within melee range, and then use Lunge(+6 BAB requirement) instead of betting readying an action for something that might not even happen.
(I was quoting the Pathfinder version. Once again I failed to spot the word 'Starfinder' in the thread...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RD you couldn't do what the feat allows without the feat. You've always had to be able to attack the location that the creature/opponent occupied.
Prior to this feat being released in Pathfinder, I had never seen it played that way in any d20 game, not in a hundred groups across Florida over the course of 20 years.
Is there a kraken under your keel dragging your sailors off with its tentacles? You chop the tentacles! It was always the most obvious course of action. The beast shouldn't be inherently immune to attack. It's such a solid and common fantasy trope that, even though you are technically correct per the RAW, it is still bad game design not to have allowed it feat free in the first place!
Prior to this feat being released in Pathfinder, I had never seen it played that way in any d20 game...
I agree. I thought that feat was limiting when I saw it as well.
|
Yup, they brought over what is, IMO, one of the stupidest and worse feats in Pathfinder over to Starfinder.
Without that feat, most GMs would allow one to ready to strike an opponent with reach (natural reach, at any rate) since OBVIOUSLY his bite is in your reach at some point as he JUST BIT YOU. Heck, even WITH that feat I've seen GMs allow it :-).
Determining rules by reading Feats has been present since 3.0. It was a stupid idea then, it is a stupid idea now :-(
Strike Back
You can strike at foes that attack you using their superior reach, by targeting their limbs or weapons as they come at you.
Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, even if the foe is outside of your reach.It seems the clarity issue here is that the benefit of the feat is in the flavor text, not in the Benefit text.
It needs to be read as:
Benefit: You can ready an action to (make a melee attack (even if the foe is outside of your reach) against any foe that attacks you in melee).And not as:
Benefit: Even if the foe is outside of your reach, you can ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee.It would be clearer if it said:
Benefit: When you ready an action to make a melee attack against any foe that attacks you in melee, you can perform this readied attack even on foes that are outside of your reach.(The other issue, of course, is that it's excessively restrictive to only allow someone to hit a huge monster in the face while it's trying to bite you if you have BAB 11 and a feat.)
Yes! Exactly! Thank you! I knew I wasn't reinventing how the English language worked. Yes, my problem is essentially as clear in its execution of what it's trying to do as this hypothetical:
Dodge
You are better at dodging things.
Benefit: You gain a +5 bonus to weapon damage rolls.
Though, now that he's brought it up, Ravingdork does have a point.
RD you couldn't do what the feat allows without the feat. You've always had to be able to attack the location that the creature/opponent occupied.Prior to this feat being released in Pathfinder, I had never seen it played that way in any d20 game, not in a hundred groups across Florida over the course of 20 years.
Is there a kraken under your keel dragging your sailors off with its tentacles? You chop the tentacles! It was always the most obvious course of action. The beast shouldn't be inherently immune to attack. It's such a solid and common fantasy trope that, even though you are technically correct per the RAW, it is still bad game design not to have allowed it feat free in the first place!
My point is only that the feat being printed never would not have made it into a rule. The feat is not the issue, and the reason the rule works like it does is to give reach advantages the power it has.
I do agree that the rules interfere with "Kraken(other tentacled creature) attacking the ship" trope. That can be fixed just by saying the tentacles of certain creatures are subject to attack, just like they do with certain monsters anyway.
That means that creatures keep the reach advantage, and certain monsters still get to keep their traditional story elements.
Yup, they brought over what is, IMO, one of the stupidest and worse feats in Pathfinder over to Starfinder.
Without that feat, most GMs would allow one to ready to strike an opponent with reach (natural reach, at any rate) since OBVIOUSLY his bite is in your reach at some point as he JUST BIT YOU. Heck, even WITH that feat I've seen GMs allow it :-).
Determining rules by reading Feats has been present since 3.0. It was a stupid idea then, it is a stupid idea now :-(
No, most GM's wouldn't, not unless it was a special case or for story reasons. Even in 3.5 you had to get to the monster to attack it, and the hydra was probably the only monster that allowed you to attack a certain body part.
As an aside if a GM wants to do something a certain way, he should do it anyway.
As an example I am ignoring that 18 cap on first level characters because it makes no sense to me to have a race that starts at a +2 have the same ceiling as someone who comes in with a -2 in an ability score.
PS: I know that officially sanctioned games don't allow the GM's to just change the rules.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, by the rules you can't hit something outside your reach. I've never had a GM allow me to ready an action to hit something attacking me from reach, nor have I ever seen a player even try it. By the rules that's impossible. This feat provides an exception to that.
Those are other games, in Pathfinder and Starfinder your 2ft sword can't hit the guy 10ft away using a polearm. I agree that is limiting if the other games you play have different rules, but only compared to rules of a different game.
In PF/SF this feat adds an option to your tactics. Just because you didn't realize you couldn't hit a creature without being able to reach it, doesn't mean it was legal to do so.
To simplify it using another feat. In PF you provoke an AoO for trying to Grapple an opponent. If the Improved Grapple feat didn't exist you'd still provoke. That feat adds a capability to your character.
RD you couldn't do what the feat allows without the feat. You've always had to be able to attack the location that the creature/opponent occupied.Prior to this feat being released in Pathfinder, I had never seen it played that way in any d20 game, not in a hundred groups across Florida over the course of 20 years.
Is there a kraken under your keel dragging your sailors off with its tentacles? You chop the tentacles! It was always the most obvious course of action. The beast shouldn't be inherently immune to attack. It's such a solid and common fantasy trope that, even though you are technically correct per the RAW, it is still bad game design not to have allowed it feat free in the first place!
The feat is not the issue, and the reason the rule works like it does is to give reach advantages the power it has.Reach already gives some pretty huge advantages. Making it impossible to ready to hit the limb is just silly and wrong.
Growf :-)
That is your opinion, but it's not a proven fact.
The fun thing about these rules, of course, is that it's impossible to sunder a giant's sword without this feat when they're standing 20 feet away and swinging it at you, but perfectly possible when you're standing by their big toe and it's 40 feet above your head.
That is not an honest thing to say. We use turn based combat to keep track of things in real life. In the game combat doesn't stop with the giant holding his sword waiting for his turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on whether you're running a rules-based campaign or a rules-plus-common-sense campaign. By RAW a halfling can sunder a giant's helmet with no more difficulty than sundering his boots, even when that doesn't make sense. Some GMs would say no to that, but say yes to readying an action to hit the dragon when it tries to hit you with a fly-by-attack.
I'm not going to pretend I know what most GMs would do, but I'd allow Strike Back without the feat (at least when you're being attacked by natural weapons; I'd allow a sunder/disarm attempt if someone was stabbing you with a long weapon from outside your reach). If it sounds like it would be possible in real life, you should be able to attempt it in game.
Of course, there's a risk to doing it my way. I have to improvise rules on the fly, so if I do a bad job of that, I'm ruining game balance for the sake of realism. But I've had no complaints so far.