WISE FWOM YOUR GWAVE!
Altered Beast much?
;-)
The issue with the free tripping is action economy. Triplocking as a free action makes it basically an endless cycle. It is no secret that action economy wins the game. Timestop does not even damage you but because it gives you so many free rounds it is a spell that. I don't think anyone will be convinced that is not already convinced though.Except, if that were true, you would only be able to deal damage with an AoO. You can trip someone, they stand, Disarm them with an AoO, they pick it up, THEN trip them with another AoO. All perfectly legal currently and completly OP by action-economy.
So, if action economy is the issue, the rules should be changed to allow only damage on AoO's. Which would also answer this issue.
My point was that with the trip-lock you dont use up any actions other than the first one to get them down. Once they are down you use free actions to keep them there, and your full round attacks to lay on the hurt. Grapple, which is designed as a "lock down" maneuver does not even do this. Should we just power grapple up also?
* sees the thread rising up, and proceeds to trip it again *Well it was but then you came along and STOKED THE FLAMES!
ARISE, BROTHAZ!
The thread has no legs so it can't be tripped. :)
POWER....UP!
You must first find and destroy its phylactery if you expect it to remain dead. Of course, that may never happen, so the thread will come back more times than Vecna did when he got involved with Amway.
@ Whispering Tyrant oh man, that made me chuckle.
Alright folks... I need to resurrect the thread yet again for another timing question....
Scenario - First Round of Combat
Attacker (Rogue) gets initiative.
Target is over 30 feet away.
Attacker readies an action to shoot target when it moves within 30 feet.
Target Charges.
At 30 feet, Readied action occurs.
Actions don't happen inside of other actions, meaning that either the readied action happens BEFORE the move action, or After, right?
Attack resolves prior to Move action resolving...
SO, the question is... is the Target flat footed, does the rogue get sneak attack damage? Prior rulings would lead me to believe so.
My point was that with the trip-lock you dont use up any actions other than the first one to get them down. Once they are down you use free actions to keep them there, and your full round attacks to lay on the hurt. Grapple, which is designed as a "lock down" maneuver does not even do this. Should we just power grapple up also?And I demonstrated, RAW, that you can still do this. Nowhere in the trip-disarm-trip sequence is a standard action called for beyond the first one. After that, it's ALL AoO's.
No you didn't. You are not understanding.
Under the proposed version you could trip-lock without spending any actions to keep someone in place. The official version does not allow you to keep someone on the ground without an action being spent.Even if you have two trippers, under the official rules, someone has to ready an action to keep you down, which I am fine with since it takes up a standard action, and if they happen to miss you might get out.
Under the proposed version you are owned, barring a few bad rolls. Depending on the opponent to roll badly is not a good strategy if they are optimized to do something.
@ Whispering Tyrant oh man, that made me chuckle.
Alright folks... I need to resurrect the thread yet again for another timing question....
Scenario - First Round of Combat
Attacker (Rogue) gets initiative.
Target is over 30 feet away.
Attacker readies an action to shoot target when it moves within 30 feet.
Target Charges.
At 30 feet, Readied action occurs.Actions don't happen inside of other actions, meaning that either the readied action happens BEFORE the move action, or After, right?
Attack resolves prior to Move action resolving...SO, the question is... is the Target flat footed, does the rogue get sneak attack damage? Prior rulings would lead me to believe so.
Yes they can. As an example if I ready an action to swing my axe as you come through a door, I still get my swing, and assuming you survive you get to keep moving.
Example 2: If someone provokes an AoO because they move through your threatened area they dont stop moving because you hit them.
There is no sneak attack damage in your specific example because even though you won initiative the person is already acting. Initiative gives you sneak attack because the person is flat-footed. Once they begin to act they are no longer flat-footed.
edit: Being caught flat-footed normally means you don't get dex to AC, which is the reason why being caught flat-footed leads to SA damage.
@ Whispering Tyrant oh man, that made me chuckle.
Alright folks... I need to resurrect the thread yet again for another timing question....
Scenario - First Round of Combat
Attacker (Rogue) gets initiative.
Target is over 30 feet away.
Attacker readies an action to shoot target when it moves within 30 feet.
Target Charges.
At 30 feet, Readied action occurs.Actions don't happen inside of other actions, meaning that either the readied action happens BEFORE the move action, or After, right?
Attack resolves prior to Move action resolving...SO, the question is... is the Target flat footed, does the rogue get sneak attack damage? Prior rulings would lead me to believe so.
Yes they can. As an example if I ready an action to swing my axe as you come through a door, I still get my swing, and assuming you survive you get to keep moving.
Example 2: If someone provokes an AoO because they move through your threatened area they dont stop moving because you hit them.
There is no sneak attack damage in your specific example because even though you won initiative the person is already acting. Initiative gives you sneak attack because the person is flat-footed. Once they begin to act they are no longer flat-footed.
edit: Being caught flat-footed normally means you don't get dex to AC, which is the reason why being caught flat-footed leads to SA damage.
I'm not so sure. you can't have an action-in-an-action according to the clarification we had earlier, so wouldn't the readied attack occur before the charge?
I'm not so sure. you can't have an action-in-an-action according to the clarification we had earlier, so wouldn't the readied attack occur before the charge?@ Whispering Tyrant oh man, that made me chuckle.
Alright folks... I need to resurrect the thread yet again for another timing question....
Scenario - First Round of Combat
Attacker (Rogue) gets initiative.
Target is over 30 feet away.
Attacker readies an action to shoot target when it moves within 30 feet.
Target Charges.
At 30 feet, Readied action occurs.Actions don't happen inside of other actions, meaning that either the readied action happens BEFORE the move action, or After, right?
Attack resolves prior to Move action resolving...SO, the question is... is the Target flat footed, does the rogue get sneak attack damage? Prior rulings would lead me to believe so.
Yes they can. As an example if I ready an action to swing my axe as you come through a door, I still get my swing, and assuming you survive you get to keep moving.
Example 2: If someone provokes an AoO because they move through your threatened area they dont stop moving because you hit them.
There is no sneak attack damage in your specific example because even though you won initiative the person is already acting. Initiative gives you sneak attack because the person is flat-footed. Once they begin to act they are no longer flat-footed.
edit: Being caught flat-footed normally means you don't get dex to AC, which is the reason why being caught flat-footed leads to SA damage.
Nope. The advantage of a readied action as opposed to an AoO is that you choose specifically when it takes place.
PS: Which clarification are you talking about? I may have missed it. The post number or a direct link might help me to explain it better.
I also think people are looking too much at RAW, and not enough at intent.
I also think people are looking too much at RAW, and not enough at intent.That's odd, I think people are looking too much at real life (which is not a game) and not enough at RAW. JMHO.
That too. :)
That too. :)I also think people are looking too much at RAW, and not enough at intent.That's odd, I think people are looking too much at real life (which is not a game) and not enough at RAW. JMHO.
*sigh* It's back... anyway, it probably has to do with "real life" being the only reference we have besides RAW. What else would you draw on for comparison? Another game, maybe, but that's a lot like saying my imaginary world is better than yours. Rather subjective.
Wow, folks,
I am kinda amazed that this is still raging on. I have skimmed the posts from my ruling till now and most of them seem to be focused around a gamist argument, which I can understand. The time issue really is just to keep matters simple (as many have pointed out). Technically, the AoO occurs as the event that provokes it is taking place, but since we can't have "middle ground" conditions, they are pushed to before to keep things straightforward. This is the only way it makes sense for spellcasting, movement, and, in this case, standing up and trip.
Whether or not triplock is too powerful is mostly irrelevant. I personally believe it is too good if the "in combat" cost is an AoO, but probably ok if it burns and action to pull off. Fortunately for my opinion, the rules support this as well, and have done so since the 3.5 ruling on this same issue.
Moving along folks.. keep it civil. I'll check back in later.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Mr. Bulmahn said we don't have "middle ground" conditions... which is what is making me wonder.
Mr. Bulmahn said we don't have "middle ground" conditions... which is what is making me wonder.Wow, folks,
I am kinda amazed that this is still raging on. I have skimmed the posts from my ruling till now and most of them seem to be focused around a gamist argument, which I can understand. The time issue really is just to keep matters simple (as many have pointed out). Technically, the AoO occurs as the event that provokes it is taking place, but since we can't have "middle ground" conditions, they are pushed to before to keep things straightforward. This is the only way it makes sense for spellcasting, movement, and, in this case, standing up and trip.
Whether or not triplock is too powerful is mostly irrelevant. I personally believe it is too good if the "in combat" cost is an AoO, but probably ok if it burns and action to pull off. Fortunately for my opinion, the rules support this as well, and have done so since the 3.5 ruling on this same issue.
Moving along folks.. keep it civil. I'll check back in later.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
There are no middle ground conditions, that does not mean actions cant be interrupted.
this was solved in an official 3.5 Rules of the game article I will post the relevant text here, but also the link
"It's possible to attempt a trip attack as an attack of opportunity. Fortunately, you can't be tripped while getting up from prone, at least not through the attack of opportunity you provoke. That because attacks of opportunity are resolved before the actions that provoke them (there are a few exceptions, see Rules of the Game: All About Attacks of Opportunity for details). When you try to stand up from a prone position, the attack of opportunity comes before you get back on your feet. Since you're still prone when the attack comes, the attack of opportunity can't trip you."
link to the article:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060321a
this was solved in an official 3.5 Rules of the game article I will post the relevant text here, but also the link
"It's possible to attempt a trip attack as an attack of opportunity. Fortunately, you can't be tripped while getting up from prone, at least not through the attack of opportunity you provoke. That because attacks of opportunity are resolved before the actions that provoke them (there are a few exceptions, see Rules of the Game: All About Attacks of Opportunity for details). When you try to stand up from a prone position, the attack of opportunity comes before you get back on your feet. Since you're still prone when the attack comes, the attack of opportunity can't trip you."
link to the article:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20060321a
We got the official answer a while ago. We just went into a discussion about whether or not it was broken. I think everyone is realizing that nobody is going to convince anyone at this point so the thread is almost dead.
The official answer is "Fighters can't have nice things."
In either event the Rogue cannot get SA. If the readied action goes off before the targets action, the target is FF but not within 30ft. If it happens when the target reaches 30ft, the target has acted and is not FF.
While personally I absolutely agree with you, I just wonder how readying an action that occurs within another action resolves mechanically by RAW.
In either event the Rogue cannot get SA. If the readied action goes off before the targets action, the target is FF but not within 30ft. If it happens when the target reaches 30ft, the target has acted and is not FF.While personally I absolutely agree with you, I just wonder how readying an action that occurs within another action resolves mechanically by RAW.
You are thinking about this way too hard. Play it as it lies, and it will resolve itself. It may also depend on the specific action being taken, and the action being readied. As an example you can ready certain weapons against charges. The player reading an action actually gets to attack first, then the charger gets his attack assuming he is still alive or conscious.
The official answer is "Fighters can't have nice things."
That does not apply. The ruling affects every creature that would try that combo, not just fighters. If you are fine with a DM locking you down with no good option to escape just houserule it.
If you are fine with a DM locking you down with no good option to escape just houserule it.
Obviously I am fine with the DM being able to lock me down with no chance to escape whenever he likes, because I play the game, and with or without trip-locking a DM can lock someone down whenever he likes...he's the freaking DM, he can drop a meteor from orbit onto me whenever he wants.
The last thing I am going to worry about is someone trying to lock me down via a method that can be completely negated by one of the most common third level spells in the game.
If you are fine with a DM locking you down with no good option to escape just houserule it.Obviously I am fine with the DM being able to lock me down with no chance to escape whenever he likes, because I play the game, and with or without trip-locking a DM can lock someone down whenever he likes...he's the freaking DM, he can drop a meteor from orbit onto me whenever he wants.
The last thing I am going to worry about is someone trying to lock me down via a method that can be completely negated by one of the most common third level spells in the game.
You knew what I meant, dont be an ass. In case you didn't, I was saying if you think it is ok within the rules, and if you need more explanations I don't mean rule 0.
With that said assuming you can fly is terrible logic. Not everyone can fly, and even if by some chance(small chance) the entire party can fly by 5 level you wont be flying all the time. If you could always fly melee itself would be negated, but I am sure that even in your group melee takes place on the ground after level 5 meaning trip can be an issue under your proposal, unless you have a counter that nobody has thought up yet.
At higher levels I see it as less of a problem, but we've played the trip-lock argument to death.
Wraithstrike, I'm just trying to clarify if I end up running Society or something, and as a bit of an excercise in learning game mechanics. The idea that your status prior to acting remains your status if another action occurs seems strange to me so I'm trying to play with it and see how it works in regards to other circumstances.
From the prd
"...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..."
The action that triggers the action is the charge, the readied action occcurs just before the charge (which is the action that causes the target to no longer be flat footed) therefore, the target is niether "charging" nor has it "acted" according to RAW, at least that's what it seems to be saying? So why shouldn't you get sneak attack damage?
I agree completely with you on how I would play it, I'm just trying to understand timing in Pathfinder as apparently my understanding of the RAW has been incorrect on timing previously (AoO's). The statement that there is no middle ground implies that actions don't exist inside of other actions, and that's backed by what's stated above.
So to be ridiculous, a character should always grumble (speak as a free action) before doing anything else in the first round of combat so to act before getting SA shot by a readied action. Better yet I'll have the character lick his lips on the first turn before doing anything else. That way he doesn't make any sound.
*edit*
What is the definition of action in the case of the trigger? Is it only limited to defined game actions or does use the wider english language definition.
I have a readied action to cast Levitate on a friend (who is climbing up a slick wall) if he falls. Falling is not an "action" as defined by the game itself. Does that mean I am not allowed to ready that spell?
|
*sigh* It's back... anyway, it probably has to do with "real life" being the only reference we have besides RAW. What else would you draw on for comparison? Another game, maybe, but that's a lot like saying my imaginary world is better than yours. Rather subjective.
I don't have a need to draw on anything else for comparison, as I feel that the rules are extremely clear on this point. Since I play the game using a very non-interpretative approach to the Rules whenever possible and I don't expect the game to simulate real life, this is not much of a problem for me personally.
You knew what I meant, dont be an ass. In case you didn't, I was saying if you think it is ok within the rules, and if you need more explanations I don't mean rule 0.
With that said assuming you can fly is terrible logic. Not everyone can fly, and even if by some chance(small chance) the entire party can fly by 5 level you wont be flying all the time. If you could always fly melee itself would be negated, but I am sure that even in your group melee takes place on the ground after level 5 meaning trip can be an issue under your proposal, unless you have a counter that nobody has thought up yet.
Hmmmm, wand of fly in the party? Or...taking steps to raise one's CMD?
What I want to know is...what on earth do YOU do when your super-evil, party-hating, ultra-competitive DM sends that group of optimized evil clerics at you with all of their Hold Person spells? I mean, come on, Hold Person lock is totally unfair.
As I said before, "Fighters can't have nice things, it disrupts the balance of the game."
So to be ridiculous, a character should always grumble (speak as a free action) before doing anything else in the first round of combat so to act before getting SA shot by a readied action. Better yet I'll have the character lick his lips on the first turn before doing anything else. That way he doesn't make any sound.
*edit*
What is the definition of action in the case of the trigger? Is it only limited to defined game actions or does use the wider english language definition.I have a readied action to cast Levitate on a friend (who is climbing up a slick wall) if he falls. Falling is not an "action" as defined by the game itself. Does that mean I am not allowed to ready that spell?
Not the point, intent, or even a relevant answer to anything posted, please be civil or don't post.
There was a ruling made, and part of that ruling was that you cannot have an action inside of another action. Now, your reaction is amusing because what you're saying is EXACTLY what I'm striking at by questioning that logic.
What would happen is that you readied your action, they fell, your levitate takes effect prior to them falling at all, end result they are levitated, then fall... cause and effect issues bothering you? Me too.
Side note-- if any readied action resets your initiative, why wouldn't you ready a free action on the first round of combat to speak when the highest initiative person acts reseting your initiative to the highest on the ladder?
We may indeed be arguing the same case. It is not simpler to make all readied or attacks of opportunity occur before the action they interrupt. It opens the door for logic traps.
It is not the cause and effect that is bothering me, but the precise action that is the trigger. The levitation example is to point out that if you define actions solely based on the 6 action types described in the rules then you preclude many events that are outside of character's allowed "actions". The action there is the fall, which is not necessarily covered under anything a character undertakes. That is to say the character on the cliff did not take a Free Action (Fall).
Here is another example more in line with the issue. I ready an action to cast Scorching Ray on an Orc when he gets within range. He is currently outside by 20 ft. (just for wiggle room). The Orc takes a move action and comes within range. What is the action my Scorching Ray goes before? If it is the move action of the orc then I can't cast the spell as he is still out of range. If it is the movement from the squire just outside my range to the one just in range, again the target is still outside range when I act before the move. I can't cast Scorching Ray just at the moment the orc enters that square because that interrupts the action.
By this same ruling it is impossible to ready a melee weapon against a charge. The attack would take place before the charge occurs. If the charge hasn't happened yet, then no distance has been covered and the target can't be in melee range.
As to lip-licking free action, it is a valid RAW defense to the sneak attack example you gave. Especially if a GM is going to rule that even though it is the character's turn he is still flat-fotted because he hasn't take a single action of the 6 defined in the rules.
If you'll go back and review my previous stance, I believe Readied actions can indeed interrupt actions, unlike AoO. AoO interrupt the normal flow of the round, not an action itself. Readied actions on the other hand "interrupt the other character" and can be set with specific triggers that are possibly in the middle or end of an action. You can, for instance, ready an action to trip an opponent when he completes standing up. This trigger obviously occurs at the end of the Move action and is very different from the Free action of an AoO responding to standing from prone.
I believe the wording "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it." is sloppy wording* and is not in fact referring to "official" game actions but rather the trigger opportunity specified in the Readied action itself. As such, I apply Jason's efficiency rules specifically to AoO, since that's what was being discussed. If it also applies to Readied actions, it does indeed make things like readying vs. a charge impossible.
I would like to see an official stance on Readied actions in this regard.
*Similar to my stance that the "+2 enhancement bonus to AC" provided by rhino hide is, in truth, a +2 Enhancement bonus to the hide Armor bonus, not a direct Enhancement to Armor Class that is independent of the Armor bonus.
If you'll go back and review my previous stance, I believe Readied actions can indeed interrupt actions, unlike AoO. AoO interrupt the normal flow of the round, not an action itself. Readied actions on the other hand "interrupt the other character" and can be set with specific triggers that are possibly in the middle or end of an action. You can, for instance, ready an action to trip an opponent when he completes standing up. This trigger obviously occurs at the end of the Move action and is very different from the Free action of an AoO responding to standing from prone.
I believe the wording "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it." is sloppy wording* and is not in fact referring to "official" game actions but rather the trigger opportunity specified in the Readied action itself. As such, I apply Jason's efficiency rules specifically to AoO, since that's what was being discussed. If it also applies to Readied actions, it does indeed make things like readying vs. a charge impossible.
I would like to see an official stance on Readied actions in this regard.
*Similar to my stance that the "+2 enhancement bonus to AC" provided by rhino hide is, in truth, a +2 Enhancement bonus to the hide Armor bonus, not a direct Enhancement to Armor Class that is independent of the Armor bonus.
I'm in complete agreement with you here, Erian. It's all about clarifying the wierd stuff. I think what's happening mechanically would be a bit closer to "A charges, B's readied attack goes off, but the damage occurs before the charge occurs" which would be wierd because if it killed the attacker his body would suddenly teleport to where he started moving. I'm SURE that's not the intent in this case either.
@Dorje, that's exactly what I'm getting at. It gets wierd with readied actions anyway, as technically you could ready a free action to talk just before the person with the highest initiative, changing your initiative order.
As for lip smacking, yes I'd think that would work. We're just ironing out the kinks, and you're helping :-).
@Dorje, that's exactly what I'm getting at. It gets wierd with readied actions anyway, as technically you could ready a free action to talk just before the person with the highest initiative, changing your initiative order.
As for lip smacking, yes I'd think that would work. We're just ironing out the kinks, and you're helping :-).
From what I can tell, there's absolutely no reason you couldn't use a Readied action to take a Free action when target A begins his turn.
Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the readied action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed your readied action, you don't get to take the readied action (though you can ready the same action again). If you take your readied action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.
Emphasis mine. This would reset your initiative, but you'd also only execute that Free action and would then have to wait until the next turn to do anything, i.e. you just pretty much wasted a turn.
So to be ridiculous, a character should always grumble (speak as a free action) before doing anything else in the first round of combat so to act before getting SA shot by a readied action.Umm what the hell are you saying here?
Once the PC's turn in the initiative has occurred they are no longer flat footed. They don't need to act, in fact they can even elect to DELAY and not be flatfooted at this point.
All that said, are people not understanding readied actions as well as not understanding AOOs?
-James
Civility, please.
Once the PC's turn is completed. There was a ruling made that brings readied actions into question as well, its not that we're not understanding it, its that there's clarification that needs to be done.
At higher levels I see it as less of a problem, but we've played the trip-lock argument to death.
Wraithstrike, I'm just trying to clarify if I end up running Society or something, and as a bit of an excercise in learning game mechanics. The idea that your status prior to acting remains your status if another action occurs seems strange to me so I'm trying to play with it and see how it works in regards to other circumstances.
From the prd
"...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..."
The action that triggers the action is the charge, the readied action occcurs just before the charge (which is the action that causes the target to no longer be flat footed) therefore, the target is niether "charging" nor has it "acted" according to RAW, at least that's what it seems to be saying? So why shouldn't you get sneak attack damage?
I agree completely with you on how I would play it, I'm just trying to understand timing in Pathfinder as apparently my understanding of the RAW has been incorrect on timing previously (AoO's). The statement that there is no middle ground implies that actions don't exist inside of other actions, and that's backed by what's stated above.
That is incorrect. You as the readier of the action determine when it is interrupted, and it really depends on how you word it. I make my players word theirs carefully. As an example if you say "I ready an action to shoot creature X when it charges then I could agree that you attack him before his action actually started.
On the other hand if you say "I will attack when he is withing 30 feet" then the action started, you attack, and if he is capable he continues to charge.Unlike AoO's which don't allow you to choose the exact moment of attack a readied action does, which is part of the reason why it takes up a standard action.
From the PRD(same thing you quoted)
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........
You knew what I meant, dont be an ass. In case you didn't, I was saying if you think it is ok within the rules, and if you need more explanations I don't mean rule 0.
With that said assuming you can fly is terrible logic. Not everyone can fly, and even if by some chance(small chance) the entire party can fly by 5 level you wont be flying all the time. If you could always fly melee itself would be negated, but I am sure that even in your group melee takes place on the ground after level 5 meaning trip can be an issue under your proposal, unless you have a counter that nobody has thought up yet.Hmmmm, wand of fly in the party? Or...taking steps to raise one's CMD?
What I want to know is...what on earth do YOU do when your super-evil, party-hating, ultra-competitive DM sends that group of optimized evil clerics at you with all of their Hold Person spells? I mean, come on, Hold Person lock is totally unfair.
As I said before, "Fighters can't have nice things, it disrupts the balance of the game."
Hold Person IIRC gives a save every round to break free. Triplocking, if it were legal does not give you a chance to do anything.
I already discussed the fly issue, and barring 3rd party products your CMD won't be good enough against a dedicated tripper. He would have to make more than one low roll in row for you to get away.
At higher levels I see it as less of a problem, but we've played the trip-lock argument to death.
Wraithstrike, I'm just trying to clarify if I end up running Society or something, and as a bit of an excercise in learning game mechanics. The idea that your status prior to acting remains your status if another action occurs seems strange to me so I'm trying to play with it and see how it works in regards to other circumstances.
From the prd
"...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..."
The action that triggers the action is the charge, the readied action occcurs just before the charge (which is the action that causes the target to no longer be flat footed) therefore, the target is niether "charging" nor has it "acted" according to RAW, at least that's what it seems to be saying? So why shouldn't you get sneak attack damage?
I agree completely with you on how I would play it, I'm just trying to understand timing in Pathfinder as apparently my understanding of the RAW has been incorrect on timing previously (AoO's). The statement that there is no middle ground implies that actions don't exist inside of other actions, and that's backed by what's stated above.
That is incorrect. You as the readier of the action determine when it is interrupted, and it really depends on how you word it. I make my players word theirs carefully. As an example if you say "I ready an action to shoot creature X when it charges then I could agree that you attack him before his action actually started.
On the other hand if you say "I will...
As for being incorrect, doesn't the ruling from earlier contradict that? "No middle ground" seems to indicate that the action is resolved prior... which if you read the prd section that you quoted, you'll see "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it."
Hold Person IIRC gives a save every round to break free. Triplocking, if it were legal does not give you a chance to do anything.
I already discussed the fly issue, and barring 3rd party products your CMD won't be good enough against a dedicated tripper. He would have to make more than one low roll in row for you to get away.
You mean you already dismissed the fly issue without actually discussing it. There are myriad ways to gain flight in the game...enough ways to where I would say a character without access to the ability to fly would be even more rare than an optimized tripper.
Also, pumping ones CMD is much easier than pumping ones Will save, but again, you dismissed that option out of hand as well.
"A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD."
As for being incorrect, doesn't the ruling from earlier contradict that? "No middle ground" seems to indicate that the action is resolved prior... which if you read the prd section that you quoted, you'll see "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it."
1.Nope. The section I quoted gives two different scenarios. It could be worded better, but I think most of us get the intent of it.
The game is built on a lot of circumstantial conditions. There are not too many rules that always work a the same no matter what.
Edit: for clarity.
Hold Person IIRC gives a save every round to break free. Triplocking, if it were legal does not give you a chance to do anything.
I already discussed the fly issue, and barring 3rd party products your CMD won't be good enough against a dedicated tripper. He would have to make more than one low roll in row for you to get away.You mean you already dismissed the fly issue without actually discussing it. There are myriad ways to gain flight in the game...enough ways to where I would say a character without access to the ability to fly would be even more rare than an optimized tripper.
Also, pumping ones CMD is much easier than pumping ones Will save, but again, you dismissed that option out of hand as well.
"A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD."
I have not dismissed fly. I am saying you don't know when Mr.Trip will show up so you can assume you can have it ready anymore than you can assume the party wizard will have you greased if Mr.Grapple shows up.
Any bonus on an item helps CMD, but so does any feat that improves a weapon. As for profane, and sacred bonuses those are not normal in most RAW games. I am trying to avoid splat for the purposes of this discussion. At that point it goes down to which debater has the most books. It does not matter what your CMD is if you never get to use it once you are on the ground*. I would rather be a poor man with barely enough to get by than have 100000000 dollars I might never get to spend.
This is one of my issues with being tripped. Once you are down you most likely can't get away, and it takes no action at all to keep you there. I don't mind grapplers so much because they have to spend actions to keep you down, and you have to have the grab(monster ability) to attack other squares, and even then you take a big penalty to the CMB check. Tripping(proposed version) gives you everything and makes you sacrifice nothing.
As for being incorrect, doesn't the ruling from earlier contradict that? "No middle ground" seems to indicate that the action is resolved prior... which if you read the prd section that you quoted, you'll see "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it."1.Nope. The section I quoted gives two different scenarios. It could be worded better, but I think most of us get the intent of it.
The game is built on a lot of circumstantial conditions. There are not too many rules that always work a the same no matter what.
Edit: for clarity.
I'd agree with you on that in my home game and that's how I'd play it, but I don't think that's what's being said or done mechanically. The only action that technically "interrupts" another action is damage while spellcasting, and that was spelled out as a specific exception to the general rule.
Again, the quote from the PRD states that the readied action occurs prior to the action that causes it to occur, if the charge is the action causing it, then it happens prior.
The question isn't wether or not we describe it working as it works mechanically (which we wouldn't) but how its occuring mechanically.
In game: The guy runs up and gets shot when he reaches the defined distance...
Mechanically : Readied action occurs prior to the action that causes the readied action to go off. Charge causes, Readied Action happens, Charge happens.
While our in game description wouldn't allow for it, mechanically it might be occuring.
As for being incorrect, doesn't the ruling from earlier contradict that? "No middle ground" seems to indicate that the action is resolved prior... which if you read the prd section that you quoted, you'll see "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it."1.Nope. The section I quoted gives two different scenarios. It could be worded better, but I think most of us get the intent of it.
The game is built on a lot of circumstantial conditions. There are not too many rules that always work a the same no matter what.
Edit: for clarity.
I'd agree with you on that in my home game and that's how I'd play it, but I don't think that's what's being said or done mechanically. The only action that technically "interrupts" another action is damage while spellcasting, and that was spelled out as a specific exception to the general rule.
Again, the quote from the PRD states that the readied action occurs prior to the action that causes it to occur, if the charge is the action causing it, then it happens prior.
The question isn't wether or not we describe it working as it works mechanically (which we wouldn't) but how its occuring mechanically.
In game: The guy runs up and gets shot when he reaches the defined distance...
Mechanically : Readied action occurs prior to the action that causes the readied action to go off. Charge causes, Readied Action happens, Charge happens.
While our in game description wouldn't allow for it, mechanically it might be occuring.
Using charge example:
You can't hit someone before and after they do something, at the same time.Either I am still in the first square when I get hit or I am in the 6th square.
If you happen to kill them are you going to move them all the way back to the first square even they clearly made it to within 30 ft of you.
Mechanically=How it happens in the game.
Your time travel method would make for a very difficult game to understand*. Play as intended. There are many instances in the game where following the words exactly will trip you up(no pun intended). That is how this thread got started.
*Not sarcasm.
I agree with you completely, unfortunately what you just described is exactly what's happening with AoO's, mechanically speaking.