I'm just curious what other GMs policies are on changing an action once it's been interrupted (by a readied action, for instance).
As an example, I once saw a game where a PC cast the spell Grease in order to trip up a charging lion and the GM ruled that the lion leaped over the grease and continued to charge. That seemed a little unfair to me at the time.
This morning I was thinking of the spell Spike Stones and how it could potentially cause a lot of damage to a charging enemy; 1d8 per 5' of movement can start to add up. But how far would you let a charging enemy move before changing his mind?
I believe Maezer is correct on that. Charging says that you have to have a clear path. So once the charge is "interrupted", it ends.
In the case of Grease or Spike Stones, I would have at least give a Perception check to see if it is noticed. Jumping over, assuming those roles are made, I believe would be fine, as jumping is considered part of normal movement. So for that to occur, assuming there is a 10' Grease Slick, I would have to start my charge 10 feet back (to avoid penalties to my acrobatics check), make a perception check to notice the Grease, make an Acrobatics check to jump over the Grease, and continue my movement to complete the charge.
I don't really allow for changing actions when they're interrupted unless it obviously makes sense. In both examples you gave above, both charges would have been nullified, in my game, with both charging creatures suffering at least partial effects of the spells you listed.
In regards to grease, I once had a charging orc barbarian slide through the area of effect to the other side to reach the party. He was (voluntarily) prone but could still attack. The spell was already in effect though and not cast as a readied action.
I'd (almost) always allow the remainder of an action to be aborted to "do nothing" if the change is in reaction to something (other than the character simply changing his mind for no reason). After all, taking damage in the middle of an action (due to an AoO or someone else's readied action) can cause the character to involuntarily abort to "lie there and bleed".
Charge is the problem child. Let's say the barbarian charges a wizard but encounters an invisible barrier before he gets there. He's certainly stuck with the -2 to AC from the moment he begins his charge, but when he impacts the barrier (bonk !) then what ?
As a HOUSE RULE: Once you start the charge, you're stuck with the -2 to AC until the start of your next turn, but
If the barb had moved more than his movement rate (but obviously less than double, since you can only charge up to that) before bonking, he's basically done a move-move, and I'll give him the remainder of that move-move to try to move around the barrier, or I'd let him change the target of his charge to the barrier itself in an attempt to smash through it.
If the barb had moved less than his movement when he encountered the charge-spoiling barrier, I *might* let him take a standard action, depending on what it is (get that bag of flour out of his pack to dump on the invisible barrier, do a mime impression, whatever).
But by RAW, I think the barb just bonks on the barrier and has to stand there at -2 AC looking foolish.
|
I'm just curious what other GMs policies are on changing an action once it's been interrupted (by a readied action, for instance).
As an example, I once saw a game where a PC cast the spell Grease in order to trip up a charging lion and the GM ruled that the lion leaped over the grease and continued to charge. That seemed a little unfair to me at the time.
I think this is pretty clearly bogus unless for some reason the player specifically readied an action to cast it in front of the lion it should have been affected by the spell and had to make a save.
This morning I was thinking of the spell Spike Stones and how it could potentially cause a lot of damage to a charging enemy; 1d8 per 5' of movement can start to add up. But how far would you let a charging enemy move before changing his mind?
As far as I'm concerned when there is an interrupt there is an opportunity to react. If there is a standard action left then you can change your action.
It does get a little strange though, particularly if you have a metagaming happy player (or GM!). "I cast grease on him after he moves 35 feet" (leaving the creature with effectively no actions left)
|
Charge is the problem child. Let's say the barbarian charges a wizard but encounters an invisible barrier before he gets there. He's certainly stuck with the -2 to AC from the moment he begins his charge, but when he impacts the barrier (bonk !) then what ?
I'd say (based on an earlier discussion about Acrobatics) it's simplest if an external event or failed check preventing part of a creature's intended movement ends that movement, edit: unless specified otherwise in the rules. I'd probably allow the barbarian to attack the wizard if he could (with a thrown weapon, for example). He'd get the -2 AC from the moment he attempted to charge.
A readied action interrupts the action that triggers it. The creature should suffer consequences of declaring the triggering action (such as the readied action itself and penalties imposed by actions, feats etc. that it tried to use) but can decide to give up the intended action.
|
|
I think it's somewhat circumstantial. If the PC specified that the grease was so go off directly at (or beneath) the feet of an opponent, then that's the end of the question.a PC cast the spell Grease in order to trip up a charging lion and the GM ruled that the lion leaped over the grease and continued to chargeI think this is pretty clearly bogus unless for some reason the player specifically readied an action to cast it in front of the lion it should have been affected by the spell and had to make a save
At the creature's location just before it takes the triggering action - yes.
If, OTOH, the grease was targeted in the path of the oncoming opponent, then I think it deserves a chance to react.
edit: If it's aware of the danger, it should be able to give up (as per my previous post) or end the action, use options and non-actions that are available as part of the action it declared, such as Acrobatics checks as part of movement, and perhaps free and immediate actions depending on the situation.
I'm just curious what other GMs policies are on changing an action once it's been interrupted (by a readied action, for instance).
As an example, I once saw a game where a PC cast the spell Grease in order to trip up a charging lion and the GM ruled that the lion leaped over the grease and continued to charge. That seemed a little unfair to me at the time.
I think this is pretty clearly bogus unless for some reason the player specifically readied an action to cast it in front of the lion it should have been affected by the spell and had to make a save.
My memory may be a bit hazy; it could have been the case that the Grease spell was cast under the lion, the lion made its Reflex save, and then it jumped out of the grease in order to avoid the need to make a Balance check.
At any rate, I would probably be less willing to let a charging creature stop on a dime (without at least a Reflex save or something) when it comes to suddenly stepping in Grease or Spike Stones or whatever.
|
I'm just curious what other GMs policies are on changing an action once it's been interrupted (by a readied action, for instance).
As an example, I once saw a game where a PC cast the spell Grease in order to trip up a charging lion and the GM ruled that the lion leaped over the grease and continued to charge. That seemed a little unfair to me at the time.
I think this is pretty clearly bogus unless for some reason the player specifically readied an action to cast it in front of the lion it should have been affected by the spell and had to make a save.
My memory may be a bit hazy; it could have been the case that the Grease spell was cast under the lion, the lion made its Reflex save, and then it jumped out of the grease in order to avoid the need to make a Balance check.
At any rate, I would probably be less willing to let a charging creature stop on a dime (without at least a Reflex save or something) when it comes to suddenly stepping in Grease or Spike Stones or whatever.
Well first lets say instead of a lion it was the PC and it was an NPC that did the casting. DM says that grease appears in the square your standing on, you make your save, then ask if you can jump out of it to continue the charge. Would a negative penalty for jumping on a slippery surface be enough to satisfy you, or would you have just said, no it's impossible, to the player. I for one would have allowed him to try it with the understanding that a failure of five or more could leave him prone in the grease. then let the PC do it, if the PC made the penalized acrobatics DC I'd allow it. So yeah the DM in this case might have done the same thing for the lion. You don't know if he gave a negative to the acrobatics roll that the lion was still able to make.
Well first lets say instead of a lion it was the PC and it was an NPC that did the casting.
I'm not sure why it would be different for a PC versus an NPC.
Would a negative penalty for jumping on a slippery surface be enough to satisfy you, or would you have just said, no it's impossible, to the player.
An Acrobatics (Jump) check with a penalty would fall under the general heading of "a Reflex save or something", sure.
|
|
Well first lets say instead of a lion it was the PC and it was an NPC that did the casting.I'm not sure why it would be different for a PC versus an NPC.
Maybe you don't, but I've seen lots of calls of DM being unfair with a ruling where if it had been a player asking to do something similar the DM would have been called unfair for not allowing it or at least thinking of something to make it work.
For me if it's okay for players to do it's okay for the DM to allow his monsters to do, granted the DM should explain himself if questioned so that the players aren't just seeing it from the perspective of "oh he's just doing it."
But your first post seemed to say that what the DM did was unfair (granted you used the term "at the time" which means that you may have changed your mind with further thought but still) so I felt compelled to ask what if it was a player doing it instead of the DM.
But your first post seemed to say that what the DM did was unfair (granted you used the term "at the time" which means that you may have changed your mind with further thought but still) so I felt compelled to ask what if it was a player doing it instead of the DM.
Good point; there is a difference. If a PC tried to do that, I would probably label it "a little cheesy" instead of "a little unfair". :-)
|
|
My memory may be a bit hazy; it could have been the case that the Grease spell was cast under the lion, the lion made its Reflex save, and then it jumped out of the grease in order to avoid the need to make a Balance check.I'm just curious what other GMs policies are on changing an action once it's been interrupted (by a readied action, for instance).
As an example, I once saw a game where a PC cast the spell Grease in order to trip up a charging lion and the GM ruled that the lion leaped over the grease and continued to charge. That seemed a little unfair to me at the time.
I think this is pretty clearly bogus unless for some reason the player specifically readied an action to cast it in front of the lion it should have been affected by the spell and had to make a save.
I could actually deal with this. I thought you meant he ignored the reflex save.
At any rate, I would probably be less willing to let a charging creature stop on a dime (without at least a Reflex save or something) when it comes to suddenly stepping in Grease or Spike Stones or whatever.
It's a tough call, particularly with grease which is after all really slippery.
I could actually deal with this. I thought you meant he ignored the reflex save.
Oh no, not at all. If there had been an obvious rule mistake, he would have fixed it right away and/or we would be discussing this on the "Rules" board, not the "Advice" board.
Reading my comments, on the issue, I think I'm probably being unfair to the GM by using the word "unfair". The ruling was completely fair by his guidelines, which involved interpreting the rules literally as much as possible.
For background, this was on the "Core Coliseum" forum on the Wizards of the Coast message boards, so you would have various GMs acting as referees between PCs and PCs or between PCs and monsters. So his opinion was that, in a multiple GM environment, consistency is more important than "common sense" (if such a thing exists). So you could end up with strange situations like elephants climbing just as well as monkeys (+10 Climb modifier for both) or a manta ray occupying a 10'x10'x10' cube even when it's swimming in 3' of water. Presumably he might have ruled differently in his home campaign.