Nothing there is an out-and-out violation of the rules. However, I would argue that since the readied action occurs before the attack, the acting character can "amend" his actions in accordance with the rules.
In your example above, Fighter B hadn't yet began his attack action; the readied action happened before the attack. So I'd say it could go like this:
1) Fighter A readies.
2) Fighter B moves 15 feet to Fighter A and declares his attack.
3) Fighter A triggers his readied action (negating Fighter A's declaration), attacks Fighter B, and shifts 5 feet.
4) Fighter B continues his move action to get to Fighter A's new position, for a total move of 20 feet, and declares his attack.
Allowing players to make adjustments to their actions "as you go" is totally within the bounds of the rules and not at all broken, while it stops every defender from being able to "sidestep" away all attacks.
Perfectly valid, but note that any oponent with an intelligance score will catch up with your tactic.
-Switching to range
-Using move to aproach and do exactly the same thing leading to:
A)Stalment
or
B)Making the tactic only invalidate the first attack, letting iteratives go as the oponent can 5 foot step to your position, this may be still a win since you are hitting with your highest BAB.
-Oponent ignores you and goes for easier targets (casters).
Also, doesn`t work against multiple oponents. But it made my Dm utterly frustated when killed his bugbear barbarian in melee combat with a fourth level Wizard and his staff.
Humbly,
Yawar
This has always been a problem, for the whole decade that 3.x has existed. Clever use of ready with a 5' move can deny a whole lot of actions from your enemies.
And note, it's not just the 5'-move. Readying normal movement can rob an attacker of his actions too (although the defender won't do anything but move either, so it's a stalemate).
It can really only be handled by houserules. Me, I rule it that moving take more time than attacking, so if you ready any kind of move actoin (withdraw, move, 5'-move, whatever) and your readied action is triggered by an attack, the attack will still go first because your enemy can swing his arm a couple feet faster than you can move your entire body at least twice as far.
Yeah, that's a houserule, but as you've pointed out, readied move actions can completely defeat many combat tactics.
Nothing is more tedious than
A: readies to move away from B if B attacks
B: tries to attack.
A: moves away so no attack happens.
Next round, repeat, then repeat again, then repeat again forever.
(and if you do that when A has a reach weapon or a missile weapon, A can make an attack every round and B can NEVER make an attack - which is totally broken).
How could B defeat that? B could ready his own action and then A and B can stand there and look at each other. B could switch to a missile weapon (if he has one) and then A and B just stand there and have a Wild West style shootout. B could run away.
None of those options are terribly appealing, leaving actual melee combat out in the cold with no way for a melee-optimized enemy to ever get an attack off.
So houserule away, or be prepared for archers to rule the world and melee combat to be broken and boring.
|
Nothing there is an out-and-out violation of the rules. However, I would argue that since the readied action occurs before the attack, the acting character can "amend" his actions in accordance with the rules.
In your example above, Fighter B hadn't yet began his attack action; the readied action happened before the attack. So I'd say it could go like this:1) Fighter A readies.
2) Fighter B moves 15 feet to Fighter A and declares his attack.
3) Fighter A triggers his readied action (negating Fighter A's declaration), attacks Fighter B, and shifts 5 feet.
4) Fighter B continues his move action to get to Fighter A's new position, for a total move of 20 feet, and declares his attack.Allowing players to make adjustments to their actions "as you go" is totally within the bounds of the rules and not at all broken, while it stops every defender from being able to "sidestep" away all attacks.
+1
I treat any readied action that is intended to interrupt this way.Two possible (similar to OP) scenarios:
"I prepare an action to move behind cover if the archer attempts to shoot me."
1) Archer is about to shoot.
2) PC moves behind total cover.
3a) Archer reallocates the action any way they want; In this case, they full-round attack a different character instead.
3b) Archer chooses to use move action to get clear line of sight on the clever character and does a standard action attack. This attack resolves normally.
"I prepare an action to move behind cover if the archer shoots me."
1) Archer shoots. First shot resolves normally.
2) PC moves behind total cover.
3) Archer can either choose to leave that attack as a standard action, or go full-round anyway and aim the rest of their attacks at other characters.
Nothing there is an out-and-out violation of the rules. However, I would argue that since the readied action occurs before the attack, the acting character can "amend" his actions in accordance with the rules.
In your example above, Fighter B hadn't yet began his attack action; the readied action happened before the attack. So I'd say it could go like this:1) Fighter A readies.
2) Fighter B moves 15 feet to Fighter A and declares his attack.
3) Fighter A triggers his readied action (negating Fighter A's declaration), attacks Fighter B, and shifts 5 feet.
4) Fighter B continues his move action to get to Fighter A's new position, for a total move of 20 feet, and declares his attack.Allowing players to make adjustments to their actions "as you go" is totally within the bounds of the rules and not at all broken, while it stops every defender from being able to "sidestep" away all attacks.
Actually, I think your example here is somewhat supported by the RAW.
Since the readied action happens before the trigger, in this case, Fighter A has not actually begun his attack when he triggers the readied action. It's an odd rules paradox, because the readied action is triggered by the attack, so if Fighter A doesn't attack, the readied action doesn't happen. But when he attacks, the readied action occurs before his attack, so he hasn't really attacked yet - which means there should be no readied action because somehow it triggered on something that hasn't happened yet. Paradox. But that's how the rules are written.
Since Fighter A has only moved 15' and has not actually attacked, then once the readied action is resolved, Fighter A is still paradoxically in his move action, which means he is within his rights to keep moving if he wishes.
So with this assumption, the OP's concern really only happens if Fighter A has moved his full allotted movement.
Sure, some sticklers could argue that Fighter A ended his Move Action and began his Standard Action, declaring his attack that triggers the Readied action before the attack but still during the Standard Action. But I'm pretty sure the RAW is not specific either way, so the first interpretation is potentially just as valid as the second.
With this second interpretation, Fighter A will lose his attack action any time Fighter B readies a movement of any kind.
From: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html
"You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action."
So this should exclude the above example. Since a 5' step is a free action and an attack is a standard action, you cannot perform both.
Ah, good catch.
Nothing is more tedious than
A: readies to move away from B if B attacks
B: tries to attack.
A: moves away so no attack happens.
Next round, repeat, then repeat again, then repeat again forever.(and if you do that when A has a reach weapon or a missile weapon, A can make an attack every round and B can NEVER make an attack - which is totally broken).
How could B defeat that? B could ready his own action and then A and B can stand there and look at each other. B could switch to a missile weapon (if he has one) and then A and B just stand there and have a Wild West style shootout. B could run away.
B could charge.
Or, B could take the "hit" for 1 round and double move adjacent to A. The next time A moved away, B would get an AOO. If A withdraws, he can't attack B, and B could then charge A. If A sets for charge, B could just move normally and then attack (which means A has no attack). If A doesn't move, then B is inside A's weapon reach, so that's bad news for A. B will only be screwed on the first round. After that, B has the advantage.
Basically, reach weapons are SUPPOSED to be better (at least untill the foe is inside the weapon's effective area). There is a reason people used polearms for a couple thousand years.
|
This is the sort of problem you get when you try and parse the rules too closely.
As a GM you do what makes sense. My suggestion is fighter B continues his move action and attacks fighter A. If fighter B has no movement left he's screwed for a round.
Overall, I would never pull these kind of tactics on my players and expect them to return the favor.
From the same source:
"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."
I read this as if you move away before he attacks, that means he didn't really get to declare an attack. Because your action interrupted his declaring an attack. Like a mini-rewind button.
So I would assume if he has movement left he can continue to move, or throw something (he can draw as a free action if he has a free hand) at you.
They should use this as an example, never seen it done in a game before, but I could see it becoming very frustrating.
|
|
From the same source:
"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."I read this as if you move away before he attacks, that means he didn't really get to declare an attack. Because your action interrupted his declaring an attack. Like a mini-rewind button.
So I would assume if he has movement left he can continue to move, or throw something (he can draw as a free action if he has a free hand) at you.They should use this as an example, never seen it done in a game before, but I could see it becoming very frustrating.
Several people suggest this solution and I would agree unless the correlation with spellcast shows some contradiction.
Replace the attack with spellcast. Fighter A - ready to shoot, Fighter B tries to cast a spell :)
Fighter A hits and Fighter B concentration is failed. According to rules the spell and an action are wasted. If use the above logic - nothing happens yet (just small amount of damage dealt). Fighter B is free to do whatever he wants.According to the rules attack is the action which trigger the ready and attack is the action interrupted, so attack is the action which should be continued (if possible). No more move possible.
And even using this home rule doesn't solve all the problem. Fighter B could be out of move, in charge and unable to change direction and target square etc.
BTW. To action after ready injustice I use a home rule which states that after ready trigger you get the current initiative, but act AFTER the character whose action triggers the ready
Yes, whether it occurs before the action requires careful phrasing of the prepared action. If they say "If they attempt to cast a spell" then it would occur before, if they say "AS they attempt to cast a spell" then it would occur simultaneously, if they say "If I get hit by a spell" it would occur after.
Just my two cents on the matter.|
|
I don't see much of a difference. In any case the trigger is cast a spell action and it will be interrupted.t
Yes, whether it occurs before the action requires careful phrasing of the prepared action. If they say "If they attempt to cast a spell" then it would occur before, if they say "AS they attempt to cast a spell" then it would occur...
The difference is in whether the spell-caster needs a concentration check or if they can reallocate their action based on what the readied action was. If the action was for after nothing in particular happens in relation to the caster that triggered it as a direct consequence.
As unexciting as it may seem - it is (and should) be a valid tactic for a character to try to avoid his foe. It mimics life nicely - if you are attacked by a guy with a knife in an alley, chances are you'll spend your time readying against his attacks and dodging out of the way when they happen.
In the opening example, this is what might happen:
- Round 1 - B moves in
- Round 1 - B (attempts to) attack A
- Round 1 - A's readied attack and 5-foot-step happens
- Round 1 - B's round ends in lieu of other valid options (both move and attack action are used up)
- Round 2 - A readies versus being attacked again by B
- Round 2 - B 5ft steps in and attempts to grapple A (fails, for the sake of argument
- Round 3 - A wises up and readies versus any attack/maneuver action by B
- Round 3 - B begins full-round attack
- Round 3 - A interrupts with readied action, attacks and 5 foot steps away
- Round 3 - B's first attack fails due to 5ft step. B 5ft steps after A and continues full-round attack
- ...
- At this point we're in a continuous cycle of A using a standard-readied-attack and 5ft step; B following suit with a full-round attack (with the first attack automatically missing)
B's in trouble if it doesn't have iterative attacks, haste or two-weapon fighting in this scenario. But that presupposes an infinite featureless plain. In a real scenario you might find terrain working to your advantage (cannot 5ft step in difficult terrain, or through walls, in most conditions).
The addition of B's ally, C, also significantly complicates the picture for A.
