|
I then do a ready action with brace against a character charging any of us 3.
Here is the first catch, which is totally up to your GM's discretion. The Ready an Action action says you must choose a condition on which your action triggers. If *I* were the GM, you'd have to choose which of the three characters you're looking to step in front of - saying, "I ready against the first orc to charge" is too general. But I fully support any GM who says that is a viable ready trigger.
I then take my ready action, I'm allowed a 5ft step according to the rules, so I step in front of the cleric and ready the brace action. I attack the charging orc with double dmg at 10ft reach. After that, he no longer has clear line of sight/movement to the cleric, so he'd have to either cut the charge short, og charge me instead, right?
Yes, this is correct.
The next 5ft of movement would also provoke an AoO from me, which I've understood to be at normal damage.
This is incorrect for two reasons: 1) With a reach weapon you threaten (can attack) squares 10 feet away, but not squares adjacent to you (assuming you're a Medium-sized creature), and 2) "Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent." - so even if you did threaten at 5ft., there is no second AoO for the charge. Edit: As noted below, this advice is not correct in this situation.
Also, when using a "ready" attack against a charging character, he gets the -2AC against the attack(s) right (for charging)?
Correct.
Thereafter, I act again before his next round, so he is strictly still in "charge mode" and still has -2AC?
Again, correct.
Cilveran wrote:
The next 5ft of movement would also provoke an AoO from me, which I've understood to be at normal damage.
Tom wrote:
This is incorrect for two reasons: 1) With a reach weapon you threaten (can attack) squares 10 feet away, but not squares adjacent to you (assuming you're a Medium-sized creature), and 2) "Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn't count as more than one opportunity for that opponent." - so even if you did threaten at 5ft., there is no second AoO for the charge.
Actually, the first attack isn't an AoO at all. It's the readied attack. I would think he would provoke an AoO from moving out of the 10' away square that is being threatened, even if he isn't moving into another threatened square.
Anyway, that's just how I'd run it.
|
|
Actually, the first attack isn't an AoO at all. It's the readied attack. I would think he would provoke an AoO from moving out of the 10' away square that is being threatened, even if he isn't moving into another threatened square.
Anyway, that's just how I'd run it.
Good point, I wasn't thinking it through. That would be the correct way to run it.
I think thats all correct as far as readied action/AoO.
We've always played that the -2 AC penalty takes when the attack is made, but not during the movement leading up to the attack. The wording isn't clear either way, but the order in which its written somewhat suggests that the AC penalty is a tradeoff of the Attack bonus and won't come up unless the attack is made. For instance, attempting to charge and then the druid uses a readied action to cast entangle in the chargers path would prevent the charge attack normally, and thus would prevent the AC penalty too.
I think thats all correct as far as readied action/AoO.
We've always played that the -2 AC penalty takes when the attack is made, but not during the movement leading up to the attack. The wording isn't clear either way, but the order in which its written somewhat suggests that the AC penalty is a tradeoff of the Attack bonus and won't come up unless the attack is made. For instance, attempting to charge and then the druid uses a readied action to cast entangle in the chargers path would prevent the charge attack normally, and thus would prevent the AC penalty too.
I can see how you might read it that way, since in the RAW, the AC penalty is written after the attack roll modifier, making it seem like the penalty is applied after the attack. But I don't think that's how they intended it to be read.
It seems to me that charging is reckless. You're moving fast, with your weapon committed to the attack. This is significantly more dangerous (to you and to your target) than moving more cautiously with your weapon ready to fend off attackers. I believe that this is why the AC penatly applies.
Of course, that is just my interpretation - the rulebook can be read either way, and unless there is an errata somewhere that I don't know about, I believe this falls under the heading of "DM decides" - so my warning to the player is to make sure the DM is clear on this before you get into your first battle.
To the OP:
Your plan is a good one, and the rules all work the way you envision it (assuming that your DM sees the charge penalty to AC the way you and I do - that is a bit of a gray area in the rules).
But a word of caution, but it's long-winded, so I'll bury it for those who actually care enough to dig up:
You may find that charging is not used as often as you might think. Archers, spellcasters, and anything else with ranged attacks obviously don't charge. Also, some melee combatants are more than willing to simply move into position without charging. Also, sometimes the terrain is rough, or something is in the way, or maybe the enemy is readying his own actions. All kinds of reasons they might not charge.
If you ready a brace weapon against a charge, and your enemy just walks up to you (or your companions) and smacks them, normally, without charging, then you won't get to attack them at all - you readied for a trigger that didn't happen, so you lose your entire action. Your friends will get pulverized (or you will) and they'll all wonder why you're standing there watching everyone take a beating.
Yes, either way, you will get your AoO as they move out of your 10' threatened area. You won't lose that. But you will lose your turn to inactivity.
Now a second word of caution.
On the other hand, there may be times he will not want to charge. He may very well, without any unfair metagame decision, decide to approach you normally without charging. This will deny you your readied action. Will you trust that the DM decided this fairly? How trusting are you?
This is a sticky situation. Sometimes your DM may decide that this battle will be more fun if he protects his bad guy, and that will be unfair to you. It could make you angry or frustrated. Sometimes the DM will do the opposite and, afraid it will anger you if he doesn't charge, he will throw away his bad guy by charging right into your trap. That will be unfair to him and it might make him angry or frustrated.
With all the potential for you and your DM to end up frustrating or angering each other, you need to be sure that you and the DM have a clear understanding on this up front, and that you trust each other to be perfectly fair.
Chances are, if you even read this far (I know, long posts like this usually just cause people to skip it entirely), then you might be thinking "Nah, that will never happen." If so, I hope you're right. But I have seen it happen, quite often, even among players who've played together for decades. I hope that you're not sitting at your game table one day next week or next month, frustrated and angry, thinking "Crap, that Tarrasque guy on the Paizo boards was right."
Now a second word of caution.** spoiler omitted **...
Re: Psychology 101.
DM_Blake is absolutely right. It doesn't even have to be a conscious decision on your DM's part. Metagaming can slip into a DMs tactical decisions without him or her realizing it.
Another thing to consider is that you don't want your character to become a one trick pony. Make sure that your feats and gear also give you other combat options that are both effective and interesting to play. Otherwise you're placing yourself and your DM in a difficult position. Your character's combat effectiveness (and presumably some measure of your enjoyment) will depend on him or her choosing tactics that cater to your one strength and to the detriment of the opponents and NPCs. Whereas a well rounded character will be effective against a wider variety of enemy tactics, allowing your DM to be more creative with encounters and also increasing the chance that you'll be satisfied with your performance during any particular encounter.
My 2 cp.
I can see how you might read it that way, since in the RAW, the AC penalty is written after the attack roll modifier, making it seem like the penalty is applied after the attack. But I don't think that's how they intended it to be read.
It seems to me that charging is reckless. You're moving fast, with your weapon committed to the attack. This is significantly more dangerous (to you and to your target) than moving more cautiously with your weapon ready to fend off attackers. I believe that this is why the AC penatly applies.
Of course, that is just my interpretation - the rulebook can be read either way, and unless there is an errata somewhere that I don't know about, I believe this falls under the heading of "DM decides" - so my warning to the player is to make sure the DM is clear on this before you get into your first battle.
Yeah our group has debated this before, but we stuck with the way we had been doing it for sake of tradition, and not making changes when its not really demanded. I can see it working either way, however.