Baarogue's page

Teridax, what you quoted on page 27 does not say that all class abilities use class DC, nor does it say that it is the default. It says "certain" abilities. The definition for class DC in the glossary says "some" abilities, so since you're claiming it is the default it is your responsibility to show us where it actually says so

I would not substitute spellcasting DC for something that actually called for class DC, as you appear to be claiming I said. I said in this case of an oversight where a psychic's or other spellcasting class's magical ability did not specify class or spellcasting DC, it makes more sense for it to use spellcasting DC. The precedent I refer to is in other spellcasting classes using spellcasting DC more often than class DC for their magical class abilities. Add to that the fact that pre-remaster the psychic class was not trained in class DC, and the claim that they would intend for those abilities to use an untrained DC becomes even less credible

"certain abilities" does not mean "all abilities", so I agree with those saying you're incorrect. I would rule that a psychic using a magical class ability such as that would use their spellcasting DC because it is the most logical choice and there is more precedent for it

Holy crap adjectives and context are not 30+ posts complicated guys

Strikes use "melee attack rolls" and "ranged attack rolls", depending on the weapon or unarmed attack used, PC p.402 first fing sentence. So if you're not making a STRIKE, you're probably not making a "melee attack roll" or a "ranged attack roll" is described on that page

Spells may use "spell attack rolls", which may further be described as melee or ranged for purposes of flanking and other rules and abilities that interact with melee and ranged. Spells are they're own special little PITAs of specific rules though so some might break format. Just do what they say in the spell description and no more. Don't OVERTHINK it and pull "unwritten rules" out of your butt based on how one spell works

Impulses may use "impulse attack rolls" (defined on RoE p.16), which may further be described as melee or ranged for purposes yadda ditto etc. They're less likely to have weird unique rules like some spells do but don't get complacent

Baarogue wrote:

Even the most "strict RAW" ruling would not work that way. The most technically correct reading is that you may not cast heal on a dhampir unless they were willing, and that you could cast harm on them even if they were unwilling; in which case they would take the void damage because they're a living creature, which in this pedantic scenario would be converted to vitality damage by Mastery of Life and Death,

That's true. Mastery of Life and Death would throw a further wrench into the works and cause Harm to actually cause damage to the Dhampir creature or other living creatures with Void Healing.

Baarogue wrote:

and then they would be healed by the void healing because "If the target is a willing undead creature, you restore that amount of Hit Points." is clearly a "void effect that heals undead."

I'm not sure on that. Unless something has changed recently that I am not aware of.

Last I saw, that was a bit of reminder text in the Dhampir heritage itself, not part of Void Healing.

A creature with void healing draws health from void energy rather than vitality energy. It is damaged by vitality damage and is not healed by healing vitality effects. It does not take void damage, and it is healed by void effects that heal undead.

Even the most "strict RAW" ruling would not work that way. The most technically correct reading is that you may not cast heal on a dhampir unless they were willing, and that you could cast harm on them even if they were unwilling; in which case they would take the void damage because they're a living creature, which in this pedantic scenario would be converted to vitality damage by Mastery of Life and Death, and then they would be healed by the void healing because "If the target is a willing undead creature, you restore that amount of Hit Points." is clearly a "void effect that heals undead."

The point I'm trying to make, Finoan, is that you should think critically about how changing what you call something in the name of "logic" and simplification might confuse how you and others think about it. If you did not call them "focus cantrips" in your head or to other people, you and they might not be confused about how they don't cost focus points

Simplification is only productive when it doesn't cause confusion and delay. "Logic" is not a good reason for it. It is a bad excuse

Baarogue said wrote:

They are unarmed attacks, and specifically NOT weapons of any sort.

Oh. You're right, indeed. It's stuck to me since 1e, apparently.

no worries. It's done that to a lot of players. I just wanted to mention it before you got too deep into that thinking because I remember from when I was considering an unarmed attack swashbuckler that there are several feats which require a weapon

"aw shoot, that guy has a whip. You know how hard those are to use? I split my own lip when I tried. He MUST be dangerous"

Search, Archives of Nethys: "focus cantrip"
Showing 0 of 0 results

So, I know they're introduced in the composition spells and hex spells sections of bard and witch, which are focus spells, and they're described in the focus spells section of the spells chapter of the book, but they're not called "focus cantrips" anywhere I could find. I feel like calling them that instead of what they're called in the books has the potential to cause more confusion and delay rather than relieve it. Just sayin'

First thing anyone here is going to do is umm actually you on the use of the phrase, "natural weapons." They are unarmed attacks, and specifically NOT weapons of any sort. So they won't count for various swashbuckler feats that require you to be welding a weapon, for instance. As for your question re: the deadly trait, as you already said, the bestial mutagen answered that already

It's almost like that's exactly what I said

This staff ends in a Y-shaped split that cradles a sling. The length of the staff provides excellent leverage when used two-handed to fling rocks or bullets from the sling.

If you're not okay with just treating it like the staff it is described as, then how about an improvised staff?

I decided to post this thread after a situation came up in PFS. I wanted the enemy to be off-guard before my eidolon used Furious Strike, so I contemplated having the eidolon Feint. But that inflicts off-guard on a crit fail, so I instead went with Create a Diversion. Then as I was about to have the eidolon Furious Strike, I realized it wasn't actually a Strike, and I questioned whether the eidolon would immediately reveal itself before the attempt. I even wondered if this was an intentional limitation of Create a Diversion to make Feint more appealing.

tch. So you did the stick in your own bike wheel meme. How much of the table's time did you waste on this thing?

Unless you're shouting "Furious Strike!" when you do it, what is it about starting an activity that would break hidden? The GM can determine that other actions don't break hidden, and I have never encountered a GM who would make such a troll ruling that just starting an activity breaks hidden. That breaks practically everything a rogue can do and also cripples way of the sniper gunslingers so it is surely not the intended reading

Area Fire weapons can't normally be fired as a Strike. But as with the Primary Target soldier class feature, I would rule that this feat allows it as a case of Specific Overrides General. Even in the playset, the unwieldy trait only forbids Strikes as part of a reaction - not altogether. So I doubt it was misunderstood for this feat

Given that its a 4th level feat, my guess is that the reference to increasing the amount you transfer increasing at 5th level is a typo of some kind. Perhaps an artifact from the feat being level 2 initially or some other design change.

My guess it's they just copy/pasted the wording from the mystic class feature but nobody checked the math

You gain a vitality network with 10 HP and can transfer up to 10 HP
Increase your max network by 10 HP at 10th, 15th, and 20th levels
Increase the amount you can transfer by 5 at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th levels

So at 5th level you have a max network of 10 HP and can transfer up to 15 HP at once? Am I missing a way to raise your network max?

Squark wrote:

I don't see anything that would indicate the soldier loses their strength bonus. Everything I see indicates you should use your normal melee damage.

I don't, either, but there are a lot better 2nd edition rules lawyers than me around; with things like Boost being clarified as single-strike only I wanted to be sure.

where has Boost been clarified as single Strike only?

As for area melee attacks, I would allow the Str bonus. Nothing says it's a ranged attack, and the rules for damage rolls only differentiate between melee, ranged, and spells, grenades, and similar items

So, for Dusty Rose Prism, we have "This aeon stone allows you to cast the 1st-level shield cantrip as an arcane innate spell, surrounding yourself in pink energy."

--> can this be done at will, 1/day, 1/hour, etc. 'As an arcane innate spell' means what?

2e says "Innate cantrips are cast at will and automatically heightened as normal for cantrip unless otherwise specified," which suggests you can use the shield cantrip at will (although in this case, the Dusty Rose Prism wording specifies it's the 1st-level version, and so you can't heighten it).

Just want to confirm this basically can be done each round on your turn if you want to...

until it's used to Shield Block. The stone's text doesn't say it overrides that limit

It's in the errata on the FAQ. This error was fixed after the first printing was finished.

tch. I checked the errata three times before posting this. I don't know how I didn't see it. Thanks

GMC p.262, Magic Scroll item table in the physical and pdf copies has a Frequency entry of "once per day, plus overcharge;" which I assume is a copy/paste leftover from the Magic Wands table, since scrolls are one-use consumables and did not appear in a table like this in the legacy Core Rulebook. This error is not duplicated in the magic scrolls entry on AoN but I could not find it corrected in the errata

Yes, I would raise the bleed damage too

The Guns & Gears Remaster Errata changed the wording on Clear a Path to allow it to benefit from Actions or Activities that include Strikes, rather than only a plain Strike. The fact that they felt the need to make this change tells me that things that say "Your previous action was a Strike" only work with basic Strikes.

Additionally, I think it's very intentional that every weapon Ikon ability is either 2 actions or a basic Strike + 1 action follow-up.

I read the change as allowing Clear a Path to work after activities that included but didn't end with a ranged Strike since so many gunslinger feats are "Strike and then do something else." I don't see it as proof that backwards looking abilities only see basic actions

As Specific Overrides General says, some rules might include reminders about the normal rules. Since, as the others pointed out, it was changed to work against darkvision and then changed back to not in the final release, I'm going to assume that's what this is and stick with my original answer

>The playtest version Justnobodyfqwl mentioned is from the third errata
Ah, a later version than my printed ones then but something I missed all the same. Thanks both. Good to know

You're confusing yourself, again, Trip. It's really not as complicated as you like to make things. But I'm exhausted with trying to explain anything to you so be as you like

That must have been a very early version of the playset, because it's unchanged from my home-printed and published copies

No, the perception and detection rules starting on p.424 go into more detail about dim light and darkness. Shadow connection doesn't say it works against darkvision, so we have to assume it functions as usual

> But why is Blazing Bolt a doomed case? All the rays are part of the same spell and aren't subordinate actions.

I just meant that you might have gotten more initial agreement with your reading if you'd started with blazing bolt as your spell example, since it resembles Vine Lash more than fireball does. But yes, it is one spell effect with no sub actions so that's why I said it would still be doomed

Yes, the wording suggests they're mandatory
I agree they should probably be changed to be optional

The argument hinges on applying the last paragraph of Subordinate Actions in reverse

Using an activity is not the same as using any of its subordinate actions. For example, the quickened condition you get from the haste spell lets you spend an extra action each turn to Stride or Strike, but you couldn't use the extra action for an activity that includes a Stride or Strike. As another example, if you used an action that specified, “If the next action you use is a Strike,” an activity that includes a Strike wouldn't count, because the next thing you are doing is starting an activity, not using the Strike basic action

They believe that restriction should be applied backwards as well as forwards, despite there being no instruction nor precedent to do so. While those like Claxon are inclined to deny backwards-looking abilities from working with the last action of an activity out of caution from some unforeseen exploit, I prefer to allow it because denying it has very definitely seen negative consequences for some class and archetype kits even without coming up with weird combinations. For instance, bog-standard rogues have Twist the Knife and many activities that can end with a Strike. I don't buy that Paizo intended that Twist the Knife can't be used unless the rogue forgoes them and only makes basic Strikes

Baarogue wrote:

You've been answered already, with examples. A fireball is one effect. Vine Lash's effect is not the damage of the Strikes. Its effect is to enable the shambler to do the Strikes in the way it describes. Vine Lash's Strikes are subordinate actions and each is a separate effect. They are not "the same effect"

The haste spell enables Strikes. Vine Lash has the user actually make the Strikes as part of the action.

Is there any reason to believe an effect that uses subordinate actions somehow doesn't include those smaller effects in its own effect?

I don't know what nonsense you're trying to claim with this false equivalency regarding haste. Haste gives the quickened condition with a use restriction. The Stride or Strike made with the action gained from that quickened is not subordinate to haste. They are not the same

As for your last question, Subordinates Actions says, "This subordinate action still has its normal traits and effects, but it's modified in any ways listed in the larger action." The subordinate action has ITS normal traits and EFFECTS. Those effects aren't attributed to the larger action, and the rule goes on to say that the sub action doesn't inherit any traits from the larger action unless specified. Note that Vine Lash also doesn't have the attack trait. Because Vine Lash is not the action you're making the attacks with. Those are from the sub Strikes, and the only effect Vine Lash has besides enabling those Strikes is that MAP doesn't kick in until all the Strikes are done

You would have made a better case, albeit still a doomed one, if you had brought up blazing bolt instead of sticking with the summoner's example fireball

You've been answered already, with examples. A fireball is one effect. Vine Lash's effect is not the damage of the Strikes. Its effect is to enable the shambler to do the Strikes in the way it describes. Vine Lash's Strikes are subordinate actions and each is a separate effect. They are not "the same effect"

I read it the way you do. It repeats the phrase, "creatures within your quantum field," but does not say anything about your position. Considering the ranged meta of Starfinder 2e and the distance at which you can place your field, it would be a poor effect if you couldn't benefit from it at range

This is a bit old of a post, but it is relevant. Shield Block now says that you and the shield each take the remaining damage. So, does that mean that both of you take the full remaining damage, which makes it far less useful, or do you still split the damage between you, half and half?

Shield Block has said, "You and the shield each take any remaining damage," since the 1st printing of 2e. It has never been half and half

No worries. And using Google instead of your book or AoN explains it. I just looked in my copy, and the playset version of Digital Ambassador does mention translator apps instead of comms and datapads. Now that AoN has a proper drop-down option to switch to Starfinder 2e rules it should be easier to find things there

“Digital Ambassador” negates penalties when using translator apps. But, I cannot find any translators or translator apps. I’d assume the penalties were -4 to the appropriate skills for not speaking the appropriate language.

“Face in the Crowd” allows you to hide in sneak with a bonus in groups of 10 or more. Does this include combat situations?

Are these questions for 1st or 2nd edition Starfinder? Both of these feats exist in 2nd edition, which is what I'm familiar with and will refer to, but are not described in the book exactly the way you're summarizing them here

As long as you’re using a comm unit, datapad, or computer to communicate, when you attempt to use a skill action with the linguistic trait on a creature that doesn’t understand the language you’re using, roll a DC 15 flat check. On a success, the effect works as if the creature understood the language you’re using. If you’re Legendary in Society, the DC is 10.

Comm units and datapads are personal equipment and are described in Adventuring Gear, beginning on SFPC p.238. "Computers" are more general and can cover pretty much anything else used for the purpose. The rules for building a computer are in GM Core, here on AoN. And you are correct. An example of the penalty this feat negates would be the one for attempting to Demoralize a target who doesn't understand your language

You know how to get lost in a crowd. You can use cover from crowds to Hide and Sneak, gaining a +2 circumstance bonus to your Stealth checks when in a crowd of at least 10 creatures and a +4 circumstance bonus to your Stealth checks when in a crowd of at least 100 creatures. Hidden creatures don't count as members of a crowd. If you're a master in Deception you only need 5 creatures to get these bonuses.

"Crowds" are described in GM Core under Urban Environments, here on AoN. They are considered difficult terrain but as described probably would not stand still if combat broke out so I doubt you'd get much benefit from it during a fight. You could use this feat in a crowd for its Stealth bonus to get close to your target and to begin combat hidden using the Avoid Notice exploration activity

Areas are 3-dimensional. A 30' burst placed 30' above the ground would only reach the ground squares directly under the burst's center. You can place the burst closer to the ground to increase the area gravity well reaches but of course that will reduce the potential fall damage. And that's assuming you have a GM who runs gravity well in a way that allows it to move creatures into the air even if they lack flight

"If forced movement would move you into a space you can't occupy—because objects are in the way or because you lack the movement type needed to reach it, for example—you stop moving in the last space you can occupy."

Most GMs will probably deny you. Ask yours to be sure

Yeah I don't see any reason they wouldn't apply. Even if you target multiple allies they're all targets

Yes

Yes, it can disrupt because it says so, but that doesn't affect the timing of the reaction, does it? We know this reaction doesn't happen after the trigger, because there's no point in disrupting something that already resolved. But the ability to disrupt isn't actually changing the timing, right?

You need to just eject Trip's concept of "reaction timing" and move past Trip's attempt to guide the narrative into his fictional rules. Stick to the printed content

Actions with Triggers says trigger happens, then reactions to it <- this is the general rule for "reaction timing"
Reactions to Movement modifies Actions with Triggers, and then modifies itself in cases where a move action doesn't leave your square <- this is a more specific rule than Actions with Triggers, but more general than specific actions, spells, and other abilities and effects
Specific over General says specific rules override general rules, which is why we can have all sorts of reaction triggers and effects that occur outside the norm of action, then reaction

Various abilities and conditions, such as a Reactive Strike, can disrupt an action. When an action is disrupted, you still use the actions or reactions you committed and you still expend any costs, but the action's effects don't occur. In the case of an activity, you usually lose all actions spent for the activity up through the end of that turn. For instance, if you began to Cast a Spell requiring 3 actions and the first action was disrupted, you lose all 3 actions that you committed to that activity.

The GM decides what effects a disruption causes beyond simply negating the effects that would have occurred from the disrupted action. For instance, a Leap disrupted midway wouldn't transport you back to the start of your jump, and a disrupted item hand off might cause the item to fall to the ground instead of staying in the hand of the creature who was trying to give it away.

It doesn't say the disrupting action has to be "timed" to resolve before the action it's disrupting. The disrupted action is still spent, but "the action's effects don't occur." This is well illustrated in how Counterspell works. The enemy caster fully Casts their Spell, and you can see their spell manifestations (which is what allows you to auto-ID it), and only then do you attempt to disrupt it with your Counterspell - because Counterspell says so. There's no MtG-style timing to track. They work because they say they work

I only checked 50 of the 322 results for a search for "affliction" on AoN and only in Kingmaker, a 3rd party product converted from 1e, was it used to refer to a variety of conditions that an army could suffer from

Someone want to check the rest? I'm p confident any current book using the word "affliction" MEANS Affliction

Baarogue wrote:

Actions With Triggers sets the general rule to: trigger happens, then reaction.

It does?

Actions with Triggers wrote:

You can use free actions that have triggers and reactions only in response to certain events. Each such reaction and free action lists the trigger that must happen for you to perform it. When its trigger is satisfied—and only when it is satisfied—you can use the reaction or free action, though you don't have to use the action if you don't want to.

I guess it could be interpreted that way. If the reaction must occur in response to a trigger, then the reaction can't happen before the trigger. But I would think you could respond to the trigger as it's happening rather than having to wait until it finishes. The Simultaneous Actions section seems to indicate that this is the case.

And is Reactive Strike actually creating an exception here? Its trigger is "A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it's using." It is not "A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action but hasn't resolved its effects yet; uses a move action or leaves a square during a move action it's using; or makes a ranged attack but hasn't rolled yet."

Does the exception purely arise from Reactive Strike including movement as a potential trigger? Its ability to disrupt move manipulate actions? The disruption only occurs if the reaction is resolved, and only against manipulate actions. If the trigger is a ranged attack, does that entire attack resolve first?

>The Simultaneous Actions section seems to indicate that this is the case.

Yes. You can use actions with triggers in the middle of another action if their trigger occurs in the middle of another action. Significantly, even in the middle of YOUR OWN actions

>And is Reactive Strike actually creating an exception here?

No, Reactive Strike is not making any exceptions. Some might rule for the narrative that if you drop someone with Reactive Strike while they're doing something, what they were doing is interrupted but it's perfectly valid to also allow it to complete -also for the narrative- if it wasn't disrupted since Reactive Strike's trigger is "does the thing", not "begins to do the thing." The only exception to waiting until the thing is done before Reactive Strike can be used is in the case of movement; but that's because Reactions to Movement says you can react "throughout the course of the distance traveled." So as soon as they exit the square you can use Reactive Strike, or a Readied Strike, or Stand Still, and if you crit with Stand Still you prevent them from moving AT ALL because it "disrupts that action."

Reactive Strike's ability to disrupt does not arise from any unwritten rule that time pauses when a reaction is used. It comes from its own text -its specific rules- SAYING it disrupts. It's that simple

Trip, this "reaction pause!" thing is nonsense of your own creation, and does not exist in the books in any form. There is no universal reaction time freeze or whatever you want to call it. Stop it. Get some help

Actions With Triggers sets the general rule to: trigger happens, then reaction. Any reactions which interrupt or have a retroactive effect work because they say they do; they are specific rules. The Reaction to Movement exception makes it so movement triggers reactions at any time during the movement, as opposed to the general rule of Actions With Triggers; which would put the trigger after the triggering move action entirely. That is what makes Reactive Strike and all other reactions to movement work, including a Readied Strike. Reactions to Movement doesn't move the trigger to after the 5'. It moves it to "throughout the course of the distance traveled." Any time you exit a square you trigger reactions to movement. They then return the trigger to the status quo for Stand and other move actions where you don't leave your square, possibly because they found PCs getting off-guard clobbered while trying to stand was demoralizing

>This is universal, even a Stand Still crit disrupt results in 5ft of movement.

Got a source for this claim?

The trigger being valid, and therefore the strat, are ultimately GM fiat.

As far as I can tell, it's not powerful, let alone broken. Any encounter that could be default killed with this seems like it could also easily be default killed by other means. Even the ogre warrior has javelins handy.

But what's all this about Ready:Strike not working against an opponent that leaves your reach? For movement based reactions, doesn't the reaction occur before the target makes it out of the square?

yes, Trip is wrong about that just as he's been wrong about everything else since he's starting from his desired exploit and working backwards, bending everything he quotes to support that instead of starting with the rules. The Reactions to Movement exception he began this thread to highlight is what makes Reactive Strike work, not any specific text in Reactive Strike. And it would make a Readied Strike triggered by movement work too

After the initial save everything to do with afflictions are checked and counted down at the end of the victim's turn

Medical items begin on p.241 and include the medpatch, hypopen, sprayflesh, and a half-dozen serums

And as an aside, Ready does limit triggers to things the PC user can observe. But why are there actions that don't have that limitation for their triggers/requirements? For example:

Sense the Unseen: You fail to Seek.
Hidden Paragon: You fail to Hide or Sneak.
Aquatic Ambush: The monster is in water and undetected.

These are circumstances the user couldn't possibly know about, yet you can react to them.

Because that's not a general rule for reactions. There is no general rule for how reactions work aside from Actions with Triggers, which is then informed and modified in Limitations on Triggers and Reactions to Movement. Any other "observed" or "discovered" rules based on compiling how the plethora of vastly different reactions work aren't worth the paper they're written on. What we have to adjudicate Ready is its text and the guidance in GMC. Rules that are specific to Ready

Dude, do not misquote text like that, wtf.

Quote:

This limitation of one action per trigger is per creature; more than one creature can use a reaction or free action in response to a given trigger. If multiple actions would be occurring at the same time, and it's unclear in what order they happen, the GM determines the order based on the narrative.

That text is specific; discussing the edge case where multiple creatures Reacting to the exact same trigger means you now have 2 things happening at the exact same time.

Beyond disingenuous to pretend that was talking about Reactions being simultaneous with their "paused" triggers generally.

I'm not misquoting anything, "dude." Two creatures reacting to the same trigger is an immediate example of the order of actions being unclear, but clearly it's not the only situation that final sentence can apply to. There is no "generally" about reactions pausing their triggers to resolve. The general rule is trigger happens, then reaction; as I have accurately quoted repeatedly

I'm sorry to say, but the "freeze time" until the Reaction resolves idea is the only way to run that text.*

The pf2 system literally runs on a sequential set of actions.

You cannot trigger a Reaction, partially execute that Reaction, then resume the triggering action, then go back to finish the Reaction. That's nonsense.

The nature of Ready only working with normal 1A actions means that you will (literally) never have a Ready situation that works differently than the Pause!-->Resolve-->Resume sequence of events. That whole readied action happens ("resolves"), and only then does the next event in the pf2 sequence get to be the triggering action/activity.

*In order to break that order of events, it would need to exist as rules instruction.
And surprise, that does exist, and rather frequently in the temporally muddied Reactions like Shield Block. The key being that the Reaction text has to inform the reader how that specific Reaction deviates from normal sequential chronology.

Quote:

Free actions with triggers and reactions work differently. You can use these whenever the trigger occurs, even if the trigger occurs in the middle of another action.

Being able to trigger and use a Reaction "in the middle of another action" is as direct a rule as it gets dude. Yes, this text does mean one gets to finish their Reaction. A Reaction cannot be "used" until the whole R is complete; if it's 1/2 done, then it is not yet "used" (FFS, how is this needing to be explained?)

You are needing to argue that this text is "actually" trying to say that such a Reaction "only gets to start" at the trigger moment, and after that, the lack of text means that it's up to the GM to dictate how the Reaction somehow, sometimes, overlaps with the triggering action.

That is plain nonsense.

There's no nonsense involved. The rules cover your scenario, and every other hyperbolic scenario you describe, quite handily in Limitations on Triggers

"This limitation of one action per trigger is per creature; more than one creature can use a reaction or free action in response to a given trigger. If multiple actions would be occurring at the same time, and it's unclear in what order they happen, the GM determines the order based on the narrative."

I wouldn't even say it's unclear what order the attack and Readied Leap happen in. Since the attack started first it's perfectly logical for it to resolve first since Ready doesn't say it interrupts or occurs retroactively. Or would you resolve multiple creatures' reactions to the same trigger in reverse order, since according to you they each freeze time and MUST resolve immediately upon being announced?

Limitations on Triggers wrote:

This limitation of one action per trigger is per creature; more than one creature can use a reaction or free action in response to a given trigger. If multiple actions would be occurring at the same time, and it's unclear in what order they happen, the GM determines the order based on the narrative.

It occurs to me that the latter sentence might not be intended to apply to the reaction and the triggering action itself, but rather just to two reactions or free actions being used in response to the same trigger.

In-Depth Action Rules wrote:

Simultaneous Actions

You can use only one single action, activity, or free action that doesn't have a trigger at a time. You must complete one before beginning another. For example, the Sudden Charge activity states you must Stride twice and then Strike, so you couldn't use an Interact action to open a door in the middle of the movement, nor could you perform part of the move, make your attack, and then finish the move.

Free actions with triggers and reactions work differently. You can use these whenever the trigger occurs, even if the trigger occurs in the middle of another action.

So it isn't out of the question for a reaction to occur in the middle of the resolution of the triggering action.

I think the main issue with whether the Ready strat is RAW is its trigger. A trigger of an attack being committed to but not yet rolled is usually phrased like: "You are attacked by a foe, but they haven’t rolled yet." This isn't observable in-universe, so it's not valid for Ready. Alternatively, if the trigger was "You are hit by an attack" and the Readied action has no effect that would save you like Reactive Shield's retroactive AC bonus would, then you are out of luck, at least for that attack.

I do like the idea of Ready:Stride thwarting Draconic Frenzy's second and third attacks, though. It's not a default kill, but it can still be a lifesaver.

SP, that "even if the trigger occurs in the middle of another action" exception does do what you say re: allowing reactions to be used during other reactions, but its primary purpose is to allow a creature to use one of their reactions even in the middle of their OWN action, since the general rule is that you may only take one action at a time. For instance, Reactive Strike to attack someone attempting to Leap away while you try to Strike them

But that doesn't mean the reaction RESOLVES immediately upon being triggered unless its text says so. Actions with Triggers only says, "When its trigger is satisfied—and only when it is satisfied—you can use the reaction or free action," but it doesn't say reactions interrupt, or occur retroactively, or anything Trip is attempting to use OTHER REACTIONS' specific rules to prove re: the secret rules for reactions that he thinks Paizo monks hid in the books with invisible ink. All the book says re: reaction timing is "if trigger occurs, then reaction can be used." There's no time freeze to resolve the reaction in the general rules, nor is there one mentioned in Ready

There is no in-world observable tell that can be used to act BEFORE an incoming attack is initiated except movement by assuming since they're making a beeline for you they're going to attack. If you Leap when they approach you can get away. But Trip wants to game the system and wait until they've committed their action to the attack to rob them of an action and MAP. It does not matter at which point during the incoming attack you place your Ready trigger. Every action is its own different package of specific rules. Some reactions interrupt. Some rewind a moment to occur retroactively. The existence of reactions that interrupt or resolve retroactively does not establish any precedent for Ready. IT does not say it does either of those things, so it doesn't

It WAS discussed early in the thread that if you use Ready: Leap when approached by someone using Sudden Charge or another movement+attack activity you could thwart the final attack if they couldn't reach you. This is not the same as Leaping away from an attack IN PROGRESS. Trip is making a false equivalency when he makes such claims