Been reading through combat actions as well as Pact Worlds' "Skyfire Centurion" archtype. Concentrated Fire (Ex) works as follows:
When you and your bonded ally both ready an action to attack the same target and choose the same condition for the readied action, when you and your bonded ally make those attacks, use the highest of the two attack rolls (each attacker applies her own modifiers to the roll). If you and your bonded ally both hit the target, total the damage for both attacks before applying the target’s DR or energy resistances.
So the question, can you ready an attack action with the condition being "on my mark", so based off of Combat Banter which isn't an action? Or does the condition have to be something that's a proper action?
If you readied the action to be "on my mark", or "on your mark", could it be burnt before, or immediately after the second person's turn? So the Centurion preps "on my mark", their bonded ally preps and immediately after the ally's turn yell "NOW!" and fire away?
It feels like a simple solution to bypass this would be for Player A to ready an action to shoot goon C when something happens, and then Player B readies an action to shoot goon C when Player A shoots.
That feels like it should make sense. If one could hold and the action is just "when player B shoots the target I'm gonna shoot too". Unfortunately it specifies "ready an action to attack the same target and choose the same condition for the readied action" so both need to pick the target and ready. The condition needs to be the same, not just the outcome. Coordination is required (and nakes sense considering the thene of the archtype).
The intent of the ability is clear that you can both shoot at the same time.
You can prepare to take an action when a certain trigger occurs by using a standard action. Decide on a standard, move, or swift action and a trigger
So if your trigger is "on three" there's no reason you can't both 1 2 3 and then shoot. Its very much both raw and rai and thematic.
Our group tried something similar to this. The GM blew up, citing that "on my mark" could be a stand in for any trigger, allowing players to essentially ignore the trigger clause of the ready an action rules. I held ever I even posted my own thread about it about a week ago.
For example, the envoy is the one that says the trigger word ("NOW!"), the soldier and operative ready to shoot an enemy upon hearing the trigger word.
Situation 1: Enemy A runs around a corner out into the open. The envoy screams "NOW!" and Enemy A gets shot full of holes.
Situation 2: Enemy B casts a spell. The envoy shouts "NOW!" and the caster's spell is interrupted.
There are limitless ways this trigger could be so abused, without the players needing to decide what might cause it in advance, when it will go off, or even which target to interrupt.
It's as bad as trying to ready an action outside of combat, then claiming you never have to roll initiative.
I cannot believe that, that was what was intended by the developers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fortunately, the developers left an out for the GM in the rules.
Thus, you can speak an amount that makes sense, at the GM's discretion, without spending any of your actions, even if it isn't your turn.
If I'm running a game, you can speak before or after another character's action, or on your own turn, but not in the middle of another character's turn. If someone is doing a full attack, as a GM I'm not obligated to let you speak in between pulls of the trigger.
Similarly, it doesn't make sense to me that someone could yell "Now!" as a reaction fast enough without actually focusing on the trigger and yelling. If in game terms they use the ready action (spending the standard action to do so) to yell "Now!" when they see someone moving, then they can interrupt that movement with said yell. Otherwise, I'll let you talk, but because you were not focusing exclusively on the timing, it'll be after that character's actions have completed.
With such a viewpoint, readying on a yell becomes approximately equivalent to delaying. Also, they had better have a well defined action for their trigger.
Our group tried something similar to this. The GM blew up, citing that "on my mark" could be a stand in for any trigger, allowing players to essentially ignore the trigger clause of the ready an action rules. I held ever I even posted my own thread about it about a week ago.
For example, the envoy is the one that says the trigger word ("NOW!"), the soldier and operative ready to shoot an enemy upon hearing the trigger word.
Yes and no. It needs to be decided beforehand what "the mark" is. My mark could be dropping my hand or waiting for you to get into position, however the GM needs to be made aware beforehand what the actual trigger is. You also need to declare a target for a readied action. It can be as vague as "shoot the first thing that comes through that door", and this still gives you the option to not do it if that first thing is say, your teammate. However if something comes up behind or husts through a window you can't change your target, or trigger. Even if the trigger is a combat banter the action still needs to be pre-defined.
Again, it needs to be preestablished, and considered. The player characters aren't psychic (most of the time), if they're setting something up in the heat of battle they need to verbally communicate, audible to the enemy who can then prepare, unless they set it up beforehand at which point the GM needs to know and understand the trigger. This is what bluff to pass secret messages is all about.
Situation 1: Enemy A runs around a corner out into the open. The envoy screams "NOW!" and Enemy A gets shot full of holes.
Situation 2: Enemy B casts a spell. The envoy shouts "NOW!" and the caster's spell is interrupted.
Situation one you haven't defined what action they are readying, which needs to be declared. If they can see enemy one coming through a window say, they don't need the Envoy trigger, it's as easy as "when that guy comes around the corner I'm shooting him". If they can't, and say the envoy hears someone coming then it's communication. They can banter, inform the other two they hear something and they prep, either the same "I'm shooting the first thing that comes around the corner" or "ready to shoot that spot on the envoy's signal", the latter more relevant if the enemy is invisible and only the envoy could see it.
Situation two, if they know the enemy is a spellcaster they can already prep the action "if he starts to cast a spell, I shoot him". However the same applies, the action needs to be decided ahead of time. Even going the way of waiting for the verbal trigger, they have to prep "I'm going to shoot the technomancer on the envoy's signal". Again, assume the envoy knows something, maybe they have goggles that can see magic?
What I'm getting at is you can't declare readying an action without declaring the action first, and in most cases it's simpler to do so solo. For the sake of Concentrated Fire (Ex), there is a benefit to synchronizing their actions with their partner, however they both still need to know the action beforehand, and they have to prep the action with their standard. They don't get extra attacks or anything new from a non-action trigger, it just means it more of a deliberate action than a reaction.
There are limitless ways this trigger could be so abused, without the players needing to decide what might cause it in advance, when it will go off, or even which target to interrupt.
Except they do need to decide all of these things, and the GM needs to be aware. The most abusable instance I could think of would be "I'm going to shoot the next thing the envoy points at", which again would require either a) knowing the trigger of the envoy point ahead of time, lest you need to verbally communicate it b) prepping the action which would use your standard and open you up to retaliation depending on the initiative difference between you and the target. Additionally, there is ruling on interruption.
If the readied action is not a purely defensive action, such as shooting a foe if he shoots at you, it takes place immediately after the triggering event.
So yes, the trigger is a combat banter non-action, however, as an example, the envoy shouting "now" is not a purely defensive action for what you are trying to interrupt, like a spell. The combat banter is a reaction to the spell, meaning it gets finished before the non-defensive shooting happens.
It's as bad as trying to ready an action outside of combat, then claiming you never have to roll initiative.
That's called a surprise round, which is it's own thing. If you are aware enough to prepare for the beginning of combat you get a surprise round. If you wanted to use your surprise round to ready an action, that's entirely legal, and in the loosest sense you're right. They'd have surprise round initiative and when they pop their readied action they would cement themselves in the new initiative order where they please. If only the envoy in question were surprised they could not prep the verbal que beforehand, and if the ones supposed to do the shooting were surprised they're flat footed and can't take reactions.
I'm not sure how you were thinking compared to my line of thought there, but it sounds like a GM who didn't have a full proper grasp on the rules, or the party (no offense). How did the conversation go a week ago if you could link it? Maybe I'm missing something?
Fortunately, the developers left an out for the GM in the rules.
Thus, you can speak an amount that makes sense, at the GM's discretion, without spending any of your actions, even if it isn't your turn.If I'm running a game, you can speak before or after another character's action, or on your own turn, but not in the middle of another character's turn. If someone is doing a full attack, as a GM I'm not obligated to let you speak in between pulls of the trigger.
Similarly, it doesn't make sense to me that someone could yell "Now!" as a reaction fast enough without actually focusing on the trigger and yelling. If in game terms they use the ready action (spending the standard action to do so) to yell "Now!" when they see someone moving, then they can interrupt that movement with said yell. Otherwise, I'll let you talk, but because you were not focusing exclusively on the timing, it'll be after that character's actions have completed.
With such a viewpoint, readying on a yell becomes approximately equivalent to delaying. Also, they had better have a well defined action for their trigger.
Exactly. I mentioned similar in my big counter-arguement above.
I mean, I would let them speak. Just for the thought of like the envoy and the technomancer crouched behind a barrel as the enemy fires blindly with their chain gun. Then there's the witty remark from the envoy "think he's got enough bullets?" Or "you know, I think I left the stove on back at the ship".
But yeah, as quoted above, non-defensive interruptions happen after the action they're interrupting.
Isaac Zephyr, the trigger was "when my ally yells 'NOW!'" and the readied action was "to shoot an enemy."
That's all that's needed. The trick is, my ally could yell the trigger word at any time, for any reason, allowing anyone else readying off the trigger word to shoot an enemy on pretty much any trigger desired (as decided upon by said ally).
It's cheese of the highest odor.
Isaac Zephyr, the trigger was "when my ally yells 'NOW!'" and the readied action was "to shoot an enemy."
That's all that's needed. The trick is, my ally could yell the trigger word at any time, for any reason, allowing anyone else readying off the trigger word to shoot an enemy on pretty much any trigger desired (as decided upon by said ally).
It's cheese of the highest odor.
Kay, but then it doesn't accomplish anything. Their damage doesn't stack against DR, a non-defensive action needs to wait for the triggering action to end (including Combat Banter), and every member of the party would need to forgo their standard action to set it up.
You'd achieve the same thing having everyone in the party delay their turn until the same initiative count, which would happen anyway since readied action changes your initiative to just after/before the trigger anyway.
The exception is an ability with something to gain, which is part of my post. Concentrated Fire (Ex), an ability that can only be used by members of the archtype and their bonded ally, singular. The Skyfire Centurion can only maintain one bond, and no creature can be bonded to more than one Centurion, and two people working as a tactical unit is entirely the writer's purpose with the archtype.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isaac Zephyr, the trigger was "when my ally yells 'NOW!'" and the readied action was "to shoot an enemy."
That's all that's needed. The trick is, my ally could yell the trigger word at any time, for any reason, allowing anyone else readying off the trigger word to shoot an enemy on pretty much any trigger desired (as decided upon by said ally).
It's cheese of the highest odor.
I would consider the readied action "to shoot an enemy" to not be specific enough. "An enemy" doesn't specify which enemy. Closest enemy would work (flipping a coin if there are equidistant ones). Enemy currently moving would work. But "an enemy" leaves choice at the time of the triggering action.
That is like saying, my readied action is "I move to a square". Or "I take a standard action". An immediate question is "Which square?" or "Which standard action." My rule of thumb is if further questions have to be asked to clarify what the action will happen at the time of the trigger, its not specific enough. Another way to put it is if the player were to leave the table, the GM should be able to carry out the triggered action for the character.
As for yelling "Now!", if the GM restricts yelling it to between turns or on your own turn, its no better than the delay action, and in the general case, a worse use of action economy. I have no objection to players delaying.
As for the use proposed here, the easiest trigger I would think to setup is "When my bonded partner has aimed his weapon at target A in preparation to shoot them", and the readied action is "I shoot at target A". Both partners can qualify for that trigger, and it will go off as soon as both have readied (and by definition aimed their weapons at target A).
I don't think making the Concentrated Fire ability hard to trigger immediately is a big deal, given that you have to give up the ability to make full attacks or any other Full action. If not based on a character's yell, or another players readied state, they could always base it on the time. I.e fire when my watch hits exactly 0800 hours and 3 seconds. And then do it again next round at 0800 hours and 9 seconds. During each players turn they just yell out a number for the second on which to fire ("3!", "9!") so they are coordinated and the enemy is scratching their head on why they keep spouting off random numbers...
Isaac Zephyr, the trigger was "when my ally yells 'NOW!'" and the readied action was "to shoot an enemy."
That's all that's needed. The trick is, my ally could yell the trigger word at any time, for any reason, allowing anyone else readying off the trigger word to shoot an enemy on pretty much any trigger desired (as decided upon by said ally).
It's cheese of the highest odor.
What I'm getting at is it's vague and open ended but it doesn't really do anything on it's own that any other prepared action wouldn't do.
The Concentrated Fire is a matter of trigger: both characters are able to act, act to gain benefit. The trigger could be "when we're both ready" and they have to be attacking the same target which requires the verbal anyway.
Going back to the Envoy yelling "Now" the best reason would be if the others needed to wait for the Envoy to accomplish something. An example they're waiting for the Envoy to use Clever Feint so that the unified target is flat footed. If something happens that stops the trigger from happening (a silence ability persay) it's just as vulnerable and they can't give the trigger, therefore they lose the actions. On the opposite end, if the feint fails, the envoy can pop the trigger anyway, chance lost but really no difference compared to just attacking normally except everyone's turn now happens just before the envoy's. With that same weakness, the only class that can change a trigger is the envoy with Situational Awareness, and they can't change everyone's trigger to make the cheese you seem to believe can be accomplished.
Shoot an enemy is a declaration of the attack action, and you can have as vague of a trigger as "the first enemy I see" already, however you can't declare "I'm going to make a standard action". It's not cheese if you don't gain anything exceptional from it.
As for the use proposed here, the easiest trigger I would think to setup is "When my bonded partner has aimed his weapon at target A in preparation to shoot them", and the readied action is "I shoot at target A". Both partners can qualify for that trigger, and it will go off as soon as both have readied (and by definition aimed their weapons at target A).
I don't think making the Concentrated Fire ability hard to trigger immediately is a big deal, given that you have to give up the ability to make full attacks or any other Full action. If not based on a character's yell, or another players readied state, they could always base it on the time. I.e fire when my watch hits exactly 0800 hours and 3 seconds. And then do it again next round at 0800 hours and 9 seconds. During each players turn they just yell out a number for the second on which to fire ("3!", "9!") so they are coordinated and the enemy is scratching their head on why they keep spouting off random numbers...
Bluff to pass secret messages and sense motive for the enemies to figure it out. This also works considering until level 10 it takes an hour of training together to make someone a bonded ally. Learning cues, body language, other such things (and it can be done with a droid for a mechanic who can program all the behaviors and cues).
But yeah, the trigger can be as easy as "when my partner is in position shoot the target". It could be as easy as nodding to one another in the first round when their initiative is separate, then to their first target and they know. Tell the GM "when my ally is in position we shoot target x". The second they both ready their actions that's it. It goes off, they attack the target. Since the attacks don't need to be the same one could even be casting a standard action offensive spell, or hitting in melee while the other shoots.
Then for at 10th when 1 resolve and a standard action can change your ally, it's as simple as telling the new ally "you've seen me do this, just follow my lead and go on my mark". The new trigger is wait for the mark on both ends, then when the Centurion gets their next turn (standard to get a new ally would mean no readied action, so the new ally should get in place and wait) they prep shoot on my mark, then end of their own turn they pop it. Or again, they could wait for a better opening like something to make the target flat footed, but as an offensive action they still have to wait, they can't interrupt.
All of it is general teamwork, and the point of a tabletop game at all. My main bit was just if there was anything saying that Combat Banter couldn't be used as a trigger, to give more agency to a player in the position of a Skyfire Centurion.
I'd allow it. I generally say yes to my players and then wind it back rather than defaulting to no - that way they're encouraged to try new things (and if they end up being stupidly overpowered then we just dial it back a bit).
If it became problematic, i think I'd restrict abuse by requiring the readied action to be carefully specified (to avoid the issues Ravingdork raises). So "We ready an action to both shoot whoever the Envoy tells us to" wouldn't work if allowing such became unreasonable on the grounds that you haven't defined the target of your action well enough (or something).
The 'split the DR' thing is useful, even if combat banter as a trigger means you go after the enemy's action.
I fail to see how "shoot an enemy" is any less valid than "shoot anything emerging from the doorway." Neither one selects a target at the time of declaration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see how "shoot an enemy" is any less valid than "shoot anything emerging from the doorway." Neither one selects a target at the time of declaration.
One requires appropriate prep. Emerging from the doorway means putting your focus on the doorway and waiting for the trigger. An enemy is anything. If the person picks a specific enemy, they can prep, but shoot "an enemy" isn't preparing for anything.
Additionally, "an enemy" would not fulfill the requirements for Concentrated Fire. You have to ready an action to attack the same target.
Finally, again, shooting "an enemy" has been pointed out a few times now as just doing the same as delaying your turn, and you can delay your turn at anytime without trigger. Say you're delaying and inform again when you'd like to rejoin initiative. It would happen after whatever turn is currently happening the same as an offensive readied action.
For example, presume the party is surrounded, enemies on all side, but they're waiting for the operative to finish planting a bomb. It's a viable thing to say "ready an action, I'm going to shoot an enemy when the bomb goes off" which would be one standard action to shoot, and would change your initiative. Alternatively, "I'm going to delay until the bomb goes off" which would be dropping in the initiative order to just after the bomb goes off, and they'd have a full turn.
There's nothing uniquely gained from "an enemy" compared to anything else. If there's something to gain by waiting like Concentrated Fire or an upcoming Clever Feint, "whoever the Envoy feint's" is just as viable... And makes more sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see how "shoot an enemy" is any less valid than "shoot anything emerging from the doorway." Neither one selects a target at the time of declaration.
I return to my rule of thumb: If the GM needs to ask further questions to complete the readied action, its not specific enough.
How do you complete the action "shoot an enemy" when there are 3 enemies within line of sight?
"Shoot anything emerging from the doorway" has a definite target. Namely, whatever just emerged from the doorway to cause the trigger. Given two characters are not allowed to move simultaneously, characters and things will move through the doorway sequentially. At any given trigger, there is one and only one target possible. If the player had left the table, I can complete that action for him as the GM. I can't do so for the previous statement.
Now players are of course free to not act when the trigger is satisfied (such as when an Ally walks through the door), but that is purely a yes/no question on whether you are taking your readied action or not. It doesn't let you change the readied action specification itself, for example.
look, its an action the character is willingly undertaking. He's not programming himself like a computer to take it. If something is vague like which enemy or which closest enemy or whatever they have an organic brain they can sort that out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see how "shoot an enemy" is any less valid than "shoot anything emerging from the doorway." Neither one selects a target at the time of declaration.
I don't know if that was to me, but I do see a qualitative difference between the two (it wouldn't really bug me as a DM, but it might bother some):
The second trigger requires no exercise of judgement at the time of completing the action - you just react. The first requires the shooter to make whatever mental steps are necessary to determine if the thing your shooting at is an innocent, an ally, of unknown motivation or whatever.
I can see a tradeoff between being able to interrupt other combatants' turns and choosing to give up some autonomy/flexibility to do so.
No exercise of judgement? Just react?
Are you one of those asinine GMs who would tell the player he MUST shoot his ally, just because said ally happened to pop out of the doorway first?
No exercise of judgement? Just react?
Are you one of those asinine GMs who would tell the player he MUST shoot his ally, just because said ally happened to pop out of the doorway first?
No.
Nevermind. I shouldn't have bothered responding.
No exercise of judgement? Just react?
Are you one of those asinine GMs who would tell the player he MUST shoot his ally, just because said ally happened to pop out of the doorway first?
No.
Nevermind. I shouldn't have bothered responding.
No, don't be discouraged. You logic was perfectly sound.
The biggest problem with "an enemy" is autonomy. The reason people reference that the GM would need to be able to make the decision if the player was away is because it's the true case. There should never be a scenario that allows for: "Well I didn't want to use it if I knew it wouldn't work" or "Well I would have waited for the big bad to come out first before popping it".
With the door scenario, if the player needs to get up and pee, the game can still run without conflict. They shoot the next enemy that comes through the door. An enemy, the GM is unable to make an unbiased decision for that character, because they do not know the proper intent of the player when they prep the action. Thus most GMs would not allow "an enemy".
Same as my one GM insisted when I was playing a wizard in Pathfinder that I had to let him know what spells were in my spellbook. He had to be aware of what I could and was going to do for spell combos. Thus if I missed a day, he could play my character appropriately. If he used a spell I was saving, the rest of the group could still say it was used with good reason.
With the door scenario, if the player needs to get up and pee, the game can still run without conflict. They shoot the next enemy that comes through the door. An enemy, the GM is unable to make an unbiased decision for that character, because they do not know the proper intent of the player when they prep the action. Thus most GMs would not allow "an enemy".
Well, I use my rule of thumb more to fit with the intent of the rules rather than for any smoothing of play at the table. Although I suppose it also does that. My player leaving the table and the GM carrying out the action might be a poor example. The player still has the option of declining the readied action per the rules, for example. Its a can, not a must.
It more to showcase that a decision is in fact being made at the time of the reaction. My general view is a character does not have time to consider all the possible information in a tenth of a second like the player does sitting at the table. It means the decision and thus preparation aren't there for someone to act in minimum reaction time. In that case, what they want to do is use the delay action not the ready action.
look, its an action the character is willingly undertaking. He's not programming himself like a computer to take it. If something is vague like which enemy or which closest enemy or whatever they have an organic brain they can sort that out.
That organic brain only works so fast. In a sense, when a character takes a readied action they kind of are programming themselves. Delay lets you take in all the information and do the usual 1 minute real time player discussion that turns into a characters 6 seconds of action that happens at many tables.
A readied action is a compression of reaction and decision making beyond even that. Readied action lets you take an action at what is typically the limit of human reaction time (and beyond sometimes).
If you are primed and focused on taking a particular action, your reaction time is much faster than if you don't know what to expect or have to make some kind of value judgement. There are studies of this with police officers for example. If they are simply told they can fire at a target as soon as they see it, the reaction time is much shorter like 0.3 seconds. If they have to identify friend or foe, it can jump up to longer than a second.
Thats basically where my rule of thumb comes from. If the character has to make a conscious decision (say which particular target) at the time of the trigger, its too late. Thinking takes time. That processing time generally means the reaction window has closed. At that point it is a delayed action, not a readied one.
So again, comparing coming through the door versus any target. If you're focusing on a door, your focus is there, your stimulus is when it move and something comes through and you pull the trigger. Its clear where your focus is and clear how you have mentally prepped yourself.
If you're saying "any enemy", where is your gun aimed prior to the shout? Sound travel time (say 0.1 seconds for 100 feet/20 squares), plus thinking time of 0.2-0.5 seconds (he yell "Four", thats means the one over there), then physically aiming the weapon accurately in that direction (gross physical motion with fine control - probably at least 0.5 seconds), and now you've finally fired 1.1 seconds after the yell.
Compared to 0.2 seconds of watching that door move to pulling the trigger on that already aimed gun with only minor motion for final aim.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No exercise of judgement? Just react?
Are you one of those asinine GMs who would tell the player he MUST shoot his ally, just because said ally happened to pop out of the doorway first?
No.
Nevermind. I shouldn't have bothered responding.
No, don't be discouraged. You logic was perfectly sound.
The biggest problem with "an enemy" is autonomy. The reason people reference that the GM would need to be able to make the decision if the player was away is because it's the true case. There should never be a scenario that allows for: "Well I didn't want to use it if I knew it wouldn't work" or "Well I would have waited for the big bad to come out first before popping it".
With the door scenario, if the player needs to get up and pee, the game can still run without conflict. They shoot the next enemy that comes through the door. An enemy, the GM is unable to make an unbiased decision for that character, because they do not know the proper intent of the player when they prep the action. Thus most GMs would not allow "an enemy".
Same as my one GM insisted when I was playing a wizard in Pathfinder that I had to let him know what spells were in my spellbook. He had to be aware of what I could and was going to do for spell combos. Thus if I missed a day, he could play my character appropriately. If he used a spell I was saving, the rest of the group could still say it was used with good reason.
My DM style is a little more loose than that - I was trying to frame the argument, not defend it. :)
I’m happy to allow combat banter to trigger ready actions, comfortable that my players won’t use it to create silly situations. I’m further confident that if we did inadvertently enable some peculiar combination of things that was overpowered, they’d be agreeable to dialling it back.
I personally come from the “rulings-not-rules” camp of DMing, regardless of the game I’m playing. Outside of purely mechanical things (like which numbers get added, which stack, how many actions does it take....etcetera) I find precisely nailing down the semantics of the rules does more harm than good.
My approach to the question is as simple as “will the players enjoy it and does it come at the cost of being always the best answer?” I think allowing a verbal cue as the trigger will allow them to use a chosen PC ability more often (which players always like) but not make it so desirable that they never do anything else.
I can see the alternative, I just don’t find it helpful to nail down the legalistic meaning of the rules to answer these sorts of questions.
I personally come from the “rulings-not-rules” camp of DMing, regardless of the game I’m playing. Outside of purely mechanical things (like which numbers get added, which stack, how many actions does it take....etcetera) I find precisely nailing down the semantics of the rules does more harm than good.
My approach to the question is as simple as “will the players enjoy it and does it come at the cost of being always the best answer?” I think allowing a verbal cue as the trigger will allow them to use a chosen PC ability more often (which players always like) but not make it so desirable that they never do anything else.
Gold star. I guess I've just been jaded between running the 4e D&D Encounters program back in the day (cue the social hanging). There was an instance I had an altercation with one of the other GMs because of one game week where he party wiped every group (something which now in the 5e Adventure League program I heard him do again last week, so fun times). There was an enemy with 3 attacks a round built into its stat block and as a boss enemy it was overwhelming. The reason was because in the description of the encounter it described how the monster was supposed to behave in combat in order to be a fair fight. His skipping that entirely killed every group and no one had fun at his tables.
I also once had a player altercation over the Intimidate skill in 4e. The long story short, he built a character with the absolute maximum Intimidate score possible so that he could use it's ability that he could make any bloodied (half health or less) enemy flee combat. I let him do it once and then proceeded to check the rules on Intimidate, discovering that fleeing was one of three options up to GM's discretion. He conveniently ommited the parts of the rules that he didn't want, and he remained in a fit over it for the rest of the session. I don't think he ever played on one of my tables again.
Then there was the tiny character with reach 10... 4e was a broken system. So very broken. Long story, my stance with rules for any game comes in allowing player agency, whilst still maintaining that the game will be a fun challenge. As a player I'll correct my GMs as I research game rules myself. I made a mistake in my first Starfinder game last week. Stood from prone and took a five foot step same turn, that was my bad though. I also asked about crit confirmation rolls. Both instances were fair mistakes as our table just came off of a Pathfinder game, but it's important to learn how things differ.
I’m blessed with reasonable players (and we’ve been playing together for something like thirty five years, so we’ve all kind of got the same idea on how things “should” be).
We had a lot of fun with 4E, but it didn’t play any differently at our table than anything else we’ve tried. (We ran the H1-E3 series, a bunch of one-shots and an awesome CotCT campaign which was a breeze to DM).
The plus-side of our approach is that there’s not really any such thing as a “broken system” because any of the things which people deem as such tend to get selected out.
My guiding principle is always the number of times PCs do something. If they end up with one strategy every battle, regardless of tactical situation then I take the view we’re probably doing it wrong.
I’m pretty sure I’d be a poor fit for organised play. :)
Thats basically where my rule of thumb comes from. If the character has to make a conscious decision (say which particular target) at the time of the trigger, its too late.
This is silly. You're not dealing with any actual limitations of someone in combat you're playing 20 questions and making your PLAYERS play a mini game to get an ability to work.
The character has an idea of which character they want to shoot. Explaining the programming to the dm is an entirely different thing. As to the two characters getting on the same page, the entire point of the feat is that they are one mind/heart/soul are really on the same page finishing each other sentences so they can signal each other without thinking about it.
As a player it is incredibly frustrating trying to get something to work when the rules only exist in the DMs head.
Thats basically where my rule of thumb comes from. If the character has to make a conscious decision (say which particular target) at the time of the trigger, its too late.This is silly. You're not dealing with any actual limitations of someone in combat you're playing 20 questions and making your PLAYERS play a mini game to get an ability to work.
Perhaps I haven't been clear enough. This is a mental rule of thumb I use when discussing rules where people are pushing the limits of the system. I've never actually had to play a mini-game as you describe. I've literally never seen it come up in play at a table.
Players (or at least the ones I play with) tend to be specific when setting up a readied action. Either they delay for maximum flexibility, or they say something like "I ready an action to shoot the first enemy I see" or "I ready to attack the first enemy to enter melee range with me" or "I ready an action to interrupt a spellcaster casting". Because of the trigger clause, the target becomes obvious (its the enemy acting and that you are naturally interrupting).
It generally can only become an issue if its an ally that is satisfying the trigger to coordinate an offensive action, at which point why can't you just delay to their same initiative and achieve the same effect with more flexibility (like allowing you to take full round actions like charge).
I suppose RavingDork's example counts as a counter example. Where they use a yell to interrupt a spellcaster or alternatively shoot an enemy instead, but he seems to agree his example shouldn't be allowed to happen. Do you feel such constructions should be allowed to both interrupt a Spellcaster, and if they don't cast, interrupt them after their standard action but before their move or swift by simply yelling for yourself?
More simply stated would you allow the construction: "I ready an action to attack anyone I want when I yell?" If you wouldn't allow that readied action, why not?
The character has an idea of which character they want to shoot. Explaining the programming to the dm is an entirely different thing. As to the two characters getting on the same page, the entire point of the feat is that they are one mind/heart/soul are really on the same page finishing each other sentences so they can signal each other without thinking about it.
As a player it is incredibly frustrating trying to get something to work when the rules only exist in the DMs head.
I'm slightly confused here. I agree with Isaac Zephyr's example. It works for me.
I'm not preventing the Skyfire Centurion ability from being used or even complicating it the phrasing. I have no objections to a yell coordinating the shooting time. I admit to restricting combat banter to between character turns, or on your own turn, but that doesn't limit what he wanted to do at all. The yell could come from the second Centurion to ready and on their own turn.
Skyfire Centurion explicitly states the readied action has to have the same target. So they say, "I shoot target X when ally A yells." as their action. I don't need to say anything as the players naturally have met my conditions.
If were GMing with two Skyfire Centurions, the exchange probably would go like:
Player 1: "We want to be able to use our Coordinated Fire ability to basically fire at the same time as soon as we can."
GM: "Okay, why doesn't the one with the higher initiative delay until the bonded ally's turn?".
Player 1: "Okay, I delay".
We get to the initiative count for Player 2.
Player 2: "I'd like to ready an action to shoot (points to target) that guy, coordinated with my bonded ally."
Player 1: "I do the same."
GM: "Okay, you coordinate your shots to aim for Grunt #2, nod ever so slightly, and fire together. Roll dice."
The target is obvious (he pointed) and I don't care how they coordinate as it is basically happening on their own turns. Chronometer hitting 12:00:03, radio comms, stomping a foot, whatever.
I feel like people are turning this into a much bigger deal than it is. We are talking about rules abstractly for why or why not we might allow or disallow certain types of readied actions on a forums, and providing our personal reasons why we do one thing or not the other.
By definition, all the rules are in the DM's head as they are the ones doing the final arbitration. Just because one player reads something one way, doesn't mean the GM reads it the same way. All you need to do is look at these forums to find examples of ten different people reading a rule ten different ways.
I'm giving you my explanation of how I interpret "specify the action". Which is admittedly the Pathfinder wording, but for the moment I'm assuming what you can have readied actions do is similar between the two games, with the understanding that offensive and defensive actions have different ordering in Starfinder. Also, RavingDork's example is Pathfinder (interrupting a spellcaster).
However, in the interests of improving my GMing to not frustrate players, could you give me an example of a readied action you've used in an actual game BigNorseWolf? I can then tell you how I would reacted to it and you can explain why that particular interaction would feel frustrating and I can try to improve my GMing for the future.
Despite being a rules lawyer on the forums, at actual tables I'm more interested in fun and smooth play for everyone. Sometimes my wife reminds me of that with a quick kick to the shin if I start bogging play down. :)
"I ready an action to shoot the first goblin through the door that isn't yelling squiddleydoodlefluffer"
(because squiddly doddlefluffer is the safe word my character uses when they're in disguise as the enemy and the party might shoot them)
"I ready an action to shoot the first goblin through the door that isn't yelling squiddleydoodlefluffer"
(because squiddly doddlefluffer is the safe word my character uses when they're in disguise as the enemy and the party might shoot them)
Me: "Okay, you ready that action."
Orc's turn comes up.
Me: "An unarmed Orc comes through the door, and takes cover behind a crate in the room while yelling 'Look out!'."
Goblin's turn comes up.
Me: "The goblins turn is now. He goes to move through the door, but without yelling squiddleydoodlefluffer. Its more like a war cry of "Yaarrgh!" But more high pitched. Do you wish to take your readied action to shoot him?"
You: "Yes."
Me: "Roll to hit."
You have a specific target during the action (the goblin moving through the door is the only obvious target in your phrasing). Note the rules imply you do not have to take your readied action when its triggered. You have the option of not taking your readied action, hence me asking in the exchange.
What would you suggest I do differently? Or would you like to add more to that exchange or change it in someway?
What would you suggest I do differently?
Let someone shoot the orc . If anything in the heat of the moment its easier to go with "is enemy/isnot enemy" than "Oh right I signed a contract to shoot the first GOBLIN and thats an orc"
Which they could have done if they'd phrased it differently. Which is why i said its a lawyering minigame
What would you suggest I do differently?
Let someone shoot the orc . If anything in the heat of the moment its easier to go with "is enemy/isnot enemy" than "Oh right I signed a contract to shoot the first GOBLIN and thats an orc"
Which they could have done if they'd phrased it differently. Which is why i said its a lawyering minigame
You're examining the situation in a vacuum. You were the one who specified a goblin, Hiruma simply used an orc as a non-goblin example.
In actual play, your reason for picking a goblin could be you expected only goblins, or you were waiting for a specific goblin, maybe a chief? Either way, you were the one who specified a goblin.
If you knew beforehand that there were enemies other than goblins again, it was your players choice and therefore there was a reason. If you didn't, I can't imagine a GM saying if the player said "hey, I didn't know there were also orcs, can I shoot the orc?" that they couldn't. As long as the enemy fulfilled the other requirement of coming through the door. You can't prep to shoot something through the door and then complain when you can't shoot the enemy that jumped in from the window on your left, or dropped out of an airshaft.
Actually Isaac Zephyr, I'd let him shoot the orc with the readied action. But at some point he has to actually tell me he wants to shoot the orc. I won't force his character to do stuff.
What would you suggest I do differently?
Let someone shoot the orc . If anything in the heat of the moment its easier to go with "is enemy/isnot enemy" than "Oh right I signed a contract to shoot the first GOBLIN and thats an orc"
Which they could have done if they'd phrased it differently. Which is why i said its a lawyering minigame
So you wanted to shoot the Orc as well? We're missing a bunch of context, and likely the situation that readied action was used is different from the one I present here. Like why we know there's a goblin and an Orc and so forth, but I would expect the exchange to go one of two ways with me GMing.
Case 1:
You: "I ready an action to shoot any enemy coming through the door that isn't yelling squiddleydoodlefluffer."
Me: "Okay, you ready that action."
Orc's turn comes up.
Me: "An unarmed Orc comes through the door, yelling "Look out!". Do you want to shoot the unarmed Orc with your readied action?"
You: "Yes"
Me: "Roll to hit"
I have no problem with that wording.
Case 2:
You: "I ready an action to shoot the first goblin through the door that isn't yelling squiddleydoodlefluffer"
Me: "Okay, you ready that action."
Orc's turn comes up.
Me: "An unarmed Orc comes through the door, and takes cover behind a crate in the room while yelling 'Look out!'."
You: "Wait, I meant to shoot any enemy coming through the door."
Me: "Okay, that is a perfectly reasonable readied action and makes sense given the situation. Do you want to shoot the unarmed Orc with your readied action?"
You: "Yes."
Me: "We rewind a bit. The orc is at the door yelling "Look out!". Roll to hit."
As a GM, I'm not psychic. I'm not trying to play word games. I interpret the player's intention as best I can. If I misunderstand something, I let you clarify, and we proceed. I don't assume the player is trying to abuse the system.
In the same way that I would like other people to assume I'm not out to get them when GMing.
Again, its hard to communicate that flow on a message board. Now that I've had a chance to respond, what do you find objectionable about the above two exchanges? You might not find anything objectionable.
Although, I would note, in a situation like that I was running in a home campaign, you'd get questioned by the local guard and asked why you shot an unarmed Orc walking into a room yelling a warning to you about a crazy goblin. They might happen just to be the local butcher. As a GM, I'm all about playing morality games. :)
Actually Isaac Zephyr, I'd let him shoot the orc with the readied action. But at some point he has to actually tell me he wants to shoot the orc. I won't force his character to do stuff.
That was what I was saying. Did I communicate it poorly? (Reading back on my message I clearly started writing it one way then changed, so I can understand the confusion.) But yeah, that's what I was trying to express. In the situation the player does not know there's more than goblins and an orc comes through, they stop to ask the GM if they can use the action to shoot the orc.
Actually Isaac Zephyr, I'd let him shoot the orc with the readied action. But at some point he has to actually tell me he wants to shoot the orc. I won't force his character to do stuff.That was what I was saying. Did I communicate it poorly? (Reading back on my message I clearly started writing it one way then changed, so I can understand the confusion.) But yeah, that's what I was trying to express. In the situation the player does not know there's more than goblins and an orc comes through, they stop to ask the GM if they can use the action to shoot the orc.
You are absolutely correct. I read it too fast and failed my comprehension roll. Communication is hard sometimes and I fully admit to making mistakes. :)
|
. . .given that the orc is both unarmed, and showing all signs of fleeing from the goblins, why would you even *want* to shoot the orc?What would you suggest I do differently?
Let someone shoot the orc . If anything in the heat of the moment its easier to go with "is enemy/isnot enemy" than "Oh right I signed a contract to shoot the first GOBLIN and thats an orc"
Which they could have done if they'd phrased it differently. Which is why i said its a lawyering minigame
Realistically, no reason. But some players are murderhobos, as attested by the Orphan Kill Count my old School club used to keep, it was disturbingly high.
To be fair, I'm sure the situation that BigNorseWolf pulled that ready action example from was very different. He most likely was thinking of it from that original perspective. However, I wanted another NPC in the example so we could have discussion on what happens when player expectations for a readied action don't match what actually happens, and how both he and I would handle it as GM and player. For the purposes of this thought experiment, his proposed action is fine. It allows me to illustrate how I'd handle it. Which I think is different than how he thinks I'd handle it.
As I've been trying to say in this thread a few times, clear communication is sometimes hard. I've probably not been explaining my view clearly enough, which has lead to some confusion.
This is in some ways mirrors how different people can come away with different readings of the rules. Or come away with different meanings of "I ready to do X when Y happens".
At the end of the day, you step back, try to clarify the best you can in good faith, and move on with the game (or the thread) and let people get back to having fun.
To me, if there’s too much flexibility in a readied action then one loses an important distinction between that and delaying.
I’ve treated delaying as the most flexible, but you need to respond to what the opponent did.
Readied actions let you interrupt the opponent, but at a cost of being less flexible than a delay.
Readied actions really don't interrupt the opponent in this system
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Readied actions really don't interrupt the opponent in this system
I thought they do in the 'shoot the next enemy to walk through that door' scenario we've been discussing.
It interrupts an opponent's turn, just not the action they take to trigger it. No?
If the enemy burst into the room guns blazing wouldnt the sequence be: their move, triggeted readied attack, their attack? (As opposed to a delayed action where theyd finish their whole turn).