If a character readying an action declares "I ready an attack action to attack the giant as it attacks me, I will use my 5 foot step to get within reach." THAT should allow the character to do it.
If the 5 foot step was all it took, we wouldn't be having this discussion because he could have just taken it during his turn and made a full attack.
From the PFSRD: [i]Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
I suppose one could argue that the reason you can't do as we've proposed is because at the time of you taking the prepared action, the creature hasn't reached out to attack you yet. From a mechanical point of view, that would make some sense at least (unlike the argument of "everyone sticks to their squares" which incorrectly assumes that there are squares to begin with--not everyone plays on a grid with minis after all nor do the rules require such play).
I still say it doesn't make much sense conceptually, but I guess we can chock that up to the oddities of turn based combat (which is required by the rules).
If a character readying an action declares "I ready an attack action to attack the giant as it attacks me, I will use my 5 foot step to get within reach." THAT should allow the character to do it.
I think we're primarily talking about things like a dragon with 15 ft. reach biting a PC while hovering 15 ft. off the ground (thus discounting the 5ft. step). One side says you can't reach the enemy, so you can't damage it -- that appears to be how PF works. The other side says if it can hit you, you can hit it -- thus you should be able to hit something as a readied action when it hits you. This is how I baled my PCs out of a big dragon encounter in 3.5 -- but I think it's kind of a cop-out. I actually like that they're not trivializing reach and making it pretty powerful.
We actually had a similar situation come up against an aberation with long tentacle attacks. At the time we ruled you could ready an action and attack a tentacle at -4, to reflect the smaller size and the quickness of the attack action. That worked for us.
But, it comes down to an argument of rules versus logic. If something can touch you, then logically you can touch it, and it seems reasonable to extend that touch to an attack action (while possibly making the attack action more difficult than normal). The readying rule seems tailor-made for this sort of situation as well.
I like the cat example from earlier. To take it a step further: one reason kicking it is easier is because (presumably) you have shoes on. Any time you use an unadorned body part to make an attack against anything that is prepared for you and capable of inflicting damage, you risk having that body part be injured. A bee can't reach me, but if i swat with an open palm it I might get stung.
I'm not sure what the argument is about. Its very clear that the rules intend for you to not be able to do this without a feat. Not only is the presence of the feat proof of this, but James reinforced this fact.
The feat wasn't written by accident.
That having been said, if people don't like that you have to have the feat, sure, houserule if it doesn't sit right with you. I'm not arguing that this one change will ruin the game, although I do think it changes some encounters and how they are assumed to work.
I think myself the feat would make more sense if you could use it to take an attack of opportunity against a reach-using attacker. But then you would need a prior feat to allow you an attack of opportunity when you are attacked.
On the balance of things, as is currently written, I'd rather take Lunge as a feat to just get the extra reach.
Fine, here's a question for all the "oh sure you can attack the limb" proponents: what is the AC of the limb? How do you determine said AC? What is its Dexterity score, its armor modifier, its natural armor, its size category?
AC of the limb = 10 + NA + Dex + Deflection + Armor + Shield bonus (in certain cases) + size category 2 sizes smaller than the creature
This isn't really hard to do.
Natural Armor is going to be extra muscle mass or some form of skin, which is obviously on the arm too.
Dex because it is part of the creature
Deflection is magical anyway
Normal Armor because that is already a generalization. Chain Shirt covers your entire body? Whatever.
Size category - think about it
Shield is the only tricky one. If you had a normal shield, it wouldn't apply because you are either attacking with your non-shielded arm or you lose the shield bonus when attacking with the shield or shield arm. Though if it was a magical shield, it would apply because it is magic
Otherwise, this makes sense. If you are wasting your time readying an action, why not make a stab at the attacking appendage, as long as they arn't using a reach weapon? Natural reach puts them in such a way that you could reach their appendage yourself. Even more so if it is a natural weapon. Reach weapon wielders would naturally be out of range.
Common sense says My hands are smaller than my body, and can move a lot faster. I can reach out slap someone and pull my hand back a lot faster and with less exposure than if I run up to them and chest bump them.
If I were going to house rule readied attacks against a creature with reach, I would make the attack at a -4 to -6 penalty due to the smaller size and quicker speed of the target. I might also rule that half of the damage sustained is subdual damage.
The whole point of the feat is that reach is SUPPOSED to be an advantage. The CRs of encounters are calculated accordingly. That you have a house rule allowing the player to not need this feat is irrelevent.
You might have a house rule that allows anyone to deflect arrows without the feat based on the logic that "The arrow came near me, I must be able to hit it", but alas the rules do not support you in that logic.
And if the creature with reach is keeping you at max range, does no one carry bows anymore? 5 foot step back and shoot.
It's evident what the rules are supposed to say, given the existence of the feat, and we have gotten a clarification from the others. However, in the absence of this feat, I would have assumed you could ready to attack a natural attack. That is how I ran the game in 3.5. I disagree that it's applying common sense to an abstract situation. Reach is not abstract, simply mechanical, and in abstract terms, being unable to reach a limb that is attacking you is the opposite of the outcome I would expect (abstractly).
Similarly, I allow players to ready to disarm or sunder reach weapons that are used against them.
Common sense says My hands are smaller than my body, and can move a lot faster. I can reach out slap someone and pull my hand back a lot faster and with less exposure than if I run up to them and chest bump them.
If I were going to house rule readied attacks against a creature with reach, I would make the attack at a -4 to -6 penalty due to the smaller size and quicker speed of the target. I might also rule that half of the damage sustained is subdual damage.
The whole point of the feat is that reach is SUPPOSED to be an advantage. The CRs of encounters are calculated accordingly. That you have a house rule allowing the player to not need this feat is irrelevent.
You might have a house rule that allows anyone to deflect arrows without the feat based on the logic that "The arrow came near me, I must be able to hit it", but alas the rules do not support you in that logic.
And if the creature with reach is keeping you at max range, does no one carry bows anymore? 5 foot step back and shoot.
The hand actually isn't any quicker. It's just smaller. Dexterity is the ability to react to any action with any part of your body.
Natural Armor is going to be extra muscle mass or some form of skin, which is obviously on the arm too.
I reject that it makes sense for a 1" thick tentacle to have the same natural armor bonus as the body of a creature.
Dex because it is part of the creature
I reject that it makes sense for all parts of a creature to be equally as dexterous.
Normal Armor because that is already a generalization. Chain Shirt covers your entire body? Whatever.
I reject that it makes sense for armor that clearly does not cover a body part to increase the AC of that individual body part. Armor as a generalized AC works beautifully for an abstract combat system which does not take into account attacks against individual sections of a target. It fails utterly in a system like you describe.
Size category - think about it
I reject that a 1" thick tentacle is the same size category as a 1' thick arm.
Implementing this rule is a problem insofar as 'lethal blows' are considered, as well.
THe Dragon hits me with its wing!
I hit! Wow, I crit! I do 126 damage to its wing! The Dragon is dead!...despite no vital part of the Dragon ever getting within reach of your weapons...
While someone could argue that maybe the blow tore the wing off the dragon...that root is on the dragon's body, not in your reach. Ditto that declawing the dragon would kill it...or de-tailing it. Sure, a bite you could justify...
Note the Close_Quarters Fighting feat, which functionally allows this if something tries to grab you, at least only works if the thing IS trying to grab you and drag you in closer. Not just on a blow passing by.
I have to conclude its good game mechanics NOT to allow this. I'd probably let you ready a strike against something trying to grab you, like CQF gives, however.
===Aelryinth
Natural Armor is going to be extra muscle mass or some form of skin, which is obviously on the arm too.I reject that it makes sense for a 1" thick tentacle to have the same natural armor bonus as the body of a creature.
On what grounds?
Dex because it is part of the creatureI reject that it makes sense for all parts of a creature to be equally as dexterous.
Then you too don't understand what dexterity is as a concept.
Normal Armor because that is already a generalization. Chain Shirt covers your entire body? Whatever.I reject that it makes sense for armor that clearly does not cover a body part to increase the AC of that individual body part.
Ok, I reject that a Chain Shirt provides any armor at all.
Armor as a generalized AC works beautifully for an abstract combat system which does not take into account attacks against individual sections of a target. It fails utterly in a system like you describe.
Only because you are nit picking.
Size category - think about itI reject that a 1" thick tentacle is the same size category as a 1" thick arm.
I have no idea what you are talking about. The arm of a human would be "Tiny", the tentacle on an Otyugh would be "Small"
Implementing this rule is a problem insofar as 'lethal blows' are considered, as well.
THe Dragon hits me with its wing!
I hit! Wow, I crit! I do 126 damage to its wing! The Dragon is dead!...despite no vital part of the Dragon ever getting within reach of your weapons...
While someone could argue that maybe the blow tore the wing off the dragon...that root is on the dragon's body, not in your reach. Ditto that declawing the dragon would kill it...or de-tailing it. Sure, a bite you could justify...
Note the Close_Quarters Fighting feat, which functionally allows this if something tries to grab you, at least only works if the thing IS trying to grab you and drag you in closer. Not just on a blow passing by.
I have to conclude its good game mechanics NOT to allow this. I'd probably let you ready a strike against something trying to grab you, like CQF gives, however.
===Aelryinth
Poking the dragon with a toothpick 1000 time wouldn't logically kill it either, but it does. And this ignores the fact that your argument IGNORES THE FEAT THAT EXISTS ALREADY.
On what grounds?
Common sense. Physical impossibility. An elephant's trunk is nowhere near as well-armored as the elephant's torso, and in fact cannot be so well armored.
Then you too don't understand what dexterity is as a concept.
Then enlighten me.
Ok, I reject that a Chain Shirt provides any armor at all.Only because you are nit picking.
Who's nit picking? Taking an argument out of context because you don't like the conclusion it draws is pretty bad form.
I have no idea what you are talking about. The arm of a human would be "Tiny", the tentacle on an Otyugh would be "Small"
This one is mea culpa; I meant a 1 inch thick tentacle vs a 1 foot thick arm, but wrote 1" for both.
Implementing this rule is a problem insofar as 'lethal blows' are considered, as well.
THe Dragon hits me with its wing!
I hit! Wow, I crit! I do 126 damage to its wing! The Dragon is dead!...despite no vital part of the Dragon ever getting within reach of your weapons...
A human can die of shock and blood-loss from a severed limb, but you do have a point. Myself I would say that even with reach, to strike you have to place more of the body in a position within reach of the foe (at a stretch) than at any other point in the fight. Even if you strike with a reach weapon, the hand that holds the weapon could conceivably be within reach. But it gets very messy with the D&D abstract combat system indeed.
In honesty, the feat isn't very strong, and isn't well worded. It makes more sense combined with the Parry and Riposte class features of the Duelist, because then your saved attack can be used two ways, but even then is not easy to envisage. As I said above, Lunge is a better feat to take if you are fighting foes with reach.
I think we all know that the feat exists. There is no need for anyone to continue pointing that out.
The problem IS that the feat exists at all. Without it, everyone would most likely assume it would work the way I did. I've spent enough time over on the D&D boards to know that no one would bat an eye for me wanting to do what I've described.
But now that there is a feat that let's you do it, (*rolls eyes*) the rules of the game have changed. I'm not arguing that you can attack a creature as it attacks from reach provided that you prepared an action--we all know that's not what the rules say. What I AM arguing is that you SHOULD be able to do just that and that the feat should not exist.
It's like when that Forgotten Realms feat that came out that let you change the appearance of your spells--something that people had been doing for years prior to the feat's incarnation.
In other words, I'm arguing that new feats should not retroactively REDUCE our options, but make more of them.
Common sense. Physical impossibility. An elephant's trunk is nowhere near as well-armored as the elephant's torso, and in fact cannot be so well armored.
On what grounds?
I assume you have some sort of evidence to back this up.
Then enlighten me.
Then you too don't understand what dexterity is as a concept.
Dexterity would be the quality of being dexterous. Your ability to move as a whole would contribute to it. Your arm doesn't move any faster than anything else, it just has less mass and more joints. The speed and control of your limbs already contributes to your basic dexterity.
Who's nit picking? Taking an argument out of context because you don't like the conclusion it draws is pretty bad form.
You are attempting to argue against generalizing by arguing for generalizing. Full plate gives you total covering, a chain shirt does not.
This one is mea culpa; I meant a 1 inch thick tentacle vs a 1 foot thick arm, but wrote 1" for both.
Sure, I guess if you are being attacked by a rope monster it wouldn't be proportional. But again you are making counterbalancing arguments.
I assume you have some sort of evidence to back this up.
I assume you have some sort of evidence to back up the original assertion that they ARE equally well armored?
Dexterity would be the quality of being dexterous. Your ability to move as a whole would contribute to it. Your arm doesn't move any faster than anything else, it just has less mass and more joints. The speed and control of your limbs already contributes to your basic dexterity.
Wow, good job of defining a word with the word. That really shows your mastery of the meaning of the word. Here's the ACTUAL definition of dexterity:
skill or adroitness in using the hands or body; agility.
Skill and grace in physical movement, especially in the use of the hands; adroitness.
I think it's pretty obvious that different parts of a creature have differing levels of dexterity. Hell, we even have a word for people who have the same amount of dexterity with both hands: ambidextrous (note the "dextrous" in there? yeah, that comes from the same root as dexterity). I don't know about anyone else, but I'm significantly less dexterous with my legs and feet than I am with my arms and hands. They have less range of motion, less coordination, and less fine control.
Dexterity as a score applies to the whole creature only because Pathfinder is built assuming that you cannot target individual parts of a creature. When you take away that assumption, you take away the reason for Dex to be universal.
You are attempting to argue against generalizing by arguing for generalizing.
No, actually, I'm pointing out that the armor class system is designed from the point of view that you cannot target a specific portion of a creature. In that design space, it makes sense for armor that only covers a part of the body to apply to the total AC. In a system where individual body parts CAN be targeted, it makes no sense.
Sure, I guess if you are being attacked by a rope monster it wouldn't be proportional. But again you are making counterbalancing arguments.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. I'm pointing out that among creatures with various attack types, each type is likely to come from a part of the creature with a potentially different size. For example, a dragon. The head (bite attack) is going to be a different size category than the tail (tail slap). And you can't generalize by attack type, either, because different creatures have different limb proportions. Hell, with some creatures, for example gelatinous cubes, the individual "limb" that delivers the attack can change in size from round to round!
I assume you have some sort of evidence to back this up.I assume you have some sort of evidence to back up the original assertion that they ARE equally well armored?
It's a perfectly logical assertion that the skin/hair/muscle is the same on the arm as on the main mass. You are the one that said it was a physical impossibility and cited elephants.
Wow, good job of defining a word with the word. That really shows your mastery of the meaning of the word. Here's the ACTUAL definition of dexterity:skill or adroitness in using the hands or body; agility.
Skill and grace in physical movement, especially in the use of the hands; adroitness.I think it's pretty obvious that different parts of a creature have differing levels of dexterity.
Too bad your definition disagrees.
Dexterity as a score applies to the whole creature only because Pathfinder is built assuming that you cannot target individual parts of a creature. When you take away that assumption, you take away the reason for Dex to be universal.
And why have dexterity at all? Your torso, being large and roughly immobile by itself, is very undextrous and that is the main body of mass. No one is going to try and kill you by stabbing your hand.
No, actually, I'm pointing out that the armor class system is designed from the point of view that you cannot target a specific portion of a creature. In that design space, it makes sense for armor that only covers a part of the body to apply to the total AC. In a system where individual body parts CAN be targeted, it makes no sense.
This somewhat makes sense but the are armors that cover the arm and some that don't. Given we are already generalizing there is no point distinguishing for something that, unlike shields, doesn't have rules that are applicable.
I just wanted to apologize for more lobbying my opinion. My original intent was simply to point out that its was not an "obvious" read that the rules worked a certain way, and that I had always, even back to the beginning of 3rd edition, read it an alternate way.
Its pointless to try and lobby opinion, especially when its very strongly held, and I had already stated my opinion. I'm sorry that I made any comment that went beyond that simple statement of fact.
It's a perfectly logical assertion that the skin/hair/muscle is the same on the arm as on the main mass. You are the one that said it was a physical impossibility and cited elephants.
I cited elephants' trunks. Which do not have skin or muscles as thick as the main body.
Too bad your definition disagrees.
No, actually, it doesn't. And it's clear you're just trolling me at this point, so this is my last response to you in this thread.
I take it that you have a side issue with the feat in this regard?
Nope, because the feat isn't trying to use common sense to break the rules but denying the use of common sense in adjudicating the break.
I take it that you have a side issue with the feat in this regard?Nope, because the feat isn't trying to use common sense to break the rules but denying the use of common sense in adjudicating the break.
Not that that makes any sense. Is there a need for this feat? I don't think so. Readying an action is a very touch-and-go kind of action. You spend an action in hopes that the exact action you are waiting for occurs. I don't see why a high level feat is needed for this. I would recommend house ruling it. The point of the feat is obviously to try and create hard rules for what would be common sense mechanics. Given the rules are very basic, is a feat needed for it? Are you really doing anything that anyone wouldn't be able to do in similar scenario?
The point of this feat is to play a fighter named "The Empire" and use the feat every round.
In other words, I'm arguing that new feats should not retroactively REDUCE our options, but make more of them.I don't think the intent was to retroactively reduce options. Instead, I think this is a case of the designers playing the game differently than rank-and-file players.
-Skeld
Oh I agree that the game designers didn't INTEND to take away options. That would defeat the point of their jobs.
As for them playing the game differently, it is clear that Jason plays the game differently than the general populace at least. This is clearly evident by some of his game design changes and occasional odd online rulings. There are people out there who equate him to George Lucas in that he made something great, but is slowly ruining it. I've even heard it said that he "should be handed a coloring book so that he can sit down and leave the system alone."
Wow. You know, I've repeatedly said that I didn't read the rules the same way as people that posted in this thread. Apparently I'm not the "general gamer population" either. But seriously, why the Jason hatred? That's pretty over the top.
|
Wow. You know, I've repeatedly said that I didn't read the rules the same way as people that posted in this thread. Apparently I'm not the "general gamer population" either. But seriously, why the Jason hatred? That's pretty over the top.
Agreed, its not needed here. Just houserule it and move along.
Edit: Plus, um, playtest feedback.
Wow. You know, I've repeatedly said that I didn't read the rules the same way as people that posted in this thread. Apparently I'm not the "general gamer population" either. But seriously, why the Jason hatred? That's pretty over the top.
You'll find another thread espousing Skip Williams hatred, as well. Such attitudes are usually a mixture of juvenile resentment of authority, arrogance, and more than a little jealousy. It's not enough for people like that to believe that their way is better. Their insecurity forces them to ridicule those who disagree. Especially those whose voices actually carry the weight of accomplishment and authority.
Wow. You know, I've repeatedly said that I didn't read the rules the same way as people that posted in this thread. Apparently I'm not the "general gamer population" either. But seriously, why the Jason hatred? That's pretty over the top.
Yeah, no kidding.
Much as I disagree with a lot of what I view as random rules changes (game designers, after all, are just as subject to "Not Invented Here Syndrome" as everyone else), I certainly don't feel the hate :)
However, that IS why I'm backporting Pathfinder to my 3.5 campaign instead of vice-versa. There's just TOO MANY arbitrary rules changes for my liking. And I find more of 'em every day.
|
|
However, that IS why I'm backporting Pathfinder to my 3.5 campaign instead of vice-versa. There's just TOO MANY arbitrary rules changes for my liking. And I find more of 'em every day.
You know, I do realize that it's somewhat fashionable to assume that anything you hadn't caught in the 3.5 ruleset but have now found to be true in the Pathfinder ruleset must, perforce, be a change, but it might be worthwhile to double check that before posting about how Paizo has changed things.
The Dec 20, 2006 edition of the 3.5 FAQ (that being the last one I bothered to download), specifically points out that you cannot attack creatures you cannot reach, even if they are attacking you; the entry includes a suggested houserule for those who feel this is nonsensical, but clearly labels it as just that: a houserule. It's on page 47 of the FAQ document in the version I just mentioned, and is only question #6 in the Combat section.
Wow. You know, I've repeatedly said that I didn't read the rules the same way as people that posted in this thread. Apparently I'm not the "general gamer population" either. But seriously, why the Jason hatred? That's pretty over the top.
That's what I said. Why all the hate? And I totally agree that it was over the top. A person can certainly disagree on an issue without being rude. Kinda makes me feel guilty for having repeated it, now that I think about it.
You'll find another thread espousing Skip Williams hatred, as well. Such attitudes are usually a mixture of juvenile resentment of authority, arrogance, and more than a little jealousy.
I couldn't agree more.
|
|
Kinda makes me feel guilty for having repeated it, now that I think about it.
Repeating it only spreads it further when we could be constructive about this instead. It seems that Shisumo has found something in the old errata that says it worked like this in 3.5 too. Anyone got a hold on something more recent in the way of errata for 3.5 to compare this too?
