|
In PF, a charge doesn't have to be in a straight line -- it just has to be directly toward the target.
So if the target moves in the middle of your charge, you can keep moving as long as the direct path is still clear and you have movement left.
If that's true, it just nerfed Pushing Assault (i.e., combined with reach weapons to break charges).
There is no requirement that the charger charge in a strait line. The only requirement is that they move directly towards the target. Normally this results in a strait line, but if the target tries to take advantage of a loophole in the rules to munchkin his way out of being whacked in the head with a lance it doesn't work.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
There is no requirement that the charger charge in a strait line. The only requirement is that they move directly towards the target. Normally this results in a strait line, but if the target tries to take advantage of a loophole in the rules to munchkin his way out of being whacked in the head with a lance it doesn't work.
*double-checks rulebook*
It appears we have a winner here, folks. It does in fact simply say "directly towards target." Since your movement was during theirs, they must either turn to keep going directly at you and complete the charge or cancel it outright. 5-ft step away only works if they are just barely within charge distance (since they'll be out of movement to follow you with).
(Does this follow RAI? Possibly not. YMMV.)
|
|
@CP: Did you block his movement? No? Then he can still move directly towards you and attack. If you did block his movement, then yes you used your readied action to negate the charge.
The Charge rules never say you must move in a straight line, only that you must move directly towards your opponent.
Not that it matters much. As a DM all I have to do is rotate the grid and BAM the tactic doesn't work.
OXXX
XOXX
XXXX
becomes
XOXX
XOXX
XXXX
and suddenly there is nowhere to 5ft to that is not either A) still in threatened range or B) still in the same line of travel. No-one actually moved, even on the 5ft scale, all I did was represent the "straight line into you" from a different angle. This means that even if the charge rules DIDN'T support turning if you are interrupted by your target moving, I could just rotate the grid and they'd hit anyway.
Note that this same "rotate the grid" argument is why I would never let someone without reach charge someone with reach and not pass through a threatened area, despite the fact that the corners are not technically threatened. You still go from 15->5 with normal movement, you're getting AoO'd.
I'm all for using the standard action to negate the charge, but using the 5ft is cheap IMO.
H is unable to make his attack, even if he has move left, because following H would break the charge rules.
No it doesn't. Following him is entirely allowed by the charge rules.
What rule, exactly, are you claiming that H is breaking in following his target? Please make sure to cite the actual rule. Remember that there's a difference between 3.5 charge and PF charge, as PF charge dropped "straight line" from the wording.
|
Combat actions in this system take place during turns. Each turn is executed entirely, in whole, and in turn. There's no such thing as taking one action now and one later in the initiative order, outside of ready. Turn A, turn B, turn C, top of the initiative, repeat.
Ready isn't a special thing that changes the mechanics of initiative. It merely allows you to move your turn's order in initiative, dependent on a trigger. All it can do is allow you to take your turn as soon as you're aware something specified is about to happen.
The only caveat is the interruption feature. This is the only place where it gets odd. Still, though, many ways people commonly try and use ready simply don't work as written.
In your example, "I take a 5-foot step when charged", it doesn't quite work. You could ready to take that step "when attacked", after the move, interrupting the turn as described, but if you do anything else in the round, wouldn't this provoke an AoO anyway? If you ready based on his movement, he's allowed (and in fact required) to complete his turn based on his original intent, thus my ruling above. It's a catch-22 for trying to dodge a charge.
Also the example given of 'heal when takes damage' isn't valid. Taking damage isn't an action on the part of the heal's intended recipient, it's the result of the attackers action. And since the rules specify 'before' as the order, it's not possible. You could ready "heal before the second creature attacks, if he needs it" but you then run the risk of not taking any action at all.
EDIT: Okay, maybe not, on that step and AoO
Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
stuff
I see you failed to take my suggestion and read the rest of this thread, where this was already discussed. Let me point something out to you:
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.
See the discrepancy? As has been discussed before in this thread, first it's telling you to ready to react to certain "conditions". And it says that the specified "condition" is what will let you take your readied action. But then it suddenly changes terminology and says your action occurs just before the "action" that triggers it.
This is a wording problem. For instance, what if I ready an action to cast cure light wounds when my barbarian friend goes unconcscious? Suppose that he runs out of rage rounds, thus ending his rage automatically (not an action), loses some hit points (not an action), and goes unconscious. Now my conditions have been satisfied - is there an action I should be casting before? Can I not take my readied action at all? Should I not have been able to ready it in the first place? Can I only ready if the trigger "condition" is an action (thus making it impossible to ready against natural hazards, among other things)?
How do you reconcile these things, mcbobbo?
Before Charge
C . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . X . . .
. . . H . .After attack
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . C . . .
. . . . H .
The subject cannot attack you. You are reall readying vs his charge ATTACK. The subject makes double move to the closest square to the target (Marked X). After that, the subject makes an attack action, which you interrupt. After you attack and move, that target must now resolve his attack action.... he doesn't get to take the rest of his move or change his action back to move.
I would say that the entire point of readying is to trap the target into whatever course of action they have chosen.
If you readied a counterspell vs someone casting a spell, they cannot change their action to another move action or to firing a crossbow after you begin your counterspell, can they? So you are correct. He cannot attack you.
|
|
I see you failed to take my suggestion and read the rest of this thread, where this was already discussed.
I don't know when exactly I peed in your cheerios, but I'm not enjoying your tone, so I'll try and keep it brief and civil. Though I do suppose it explains why you attacked me in that other thread as well...
Let me point something out to you: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.See the discrepancy? As has been discussed before in this thread, first it's telling you to ready to react to certain "conditions". And it says that the specified "condition" is what will let you take your readied action. But then it suddenly changes terminology and says your action occurs just before the "action" that triggers it.
The term 'condition' here does not read to me as a game term. This, as far as I can tell, is not 'dazed/unconscious/etc' but 'if/then/else' - programmatic - 'condition'.
This is a wording problem. For instance, what if I ready an action to cast cure light wounds when my barbarian friend goes unconcscious? Suppose that he runs out of rage rounds, thus ending his rage automatically (not an action), loses some hit points (not an action), and goes unconscious. Now my conditions have been satisfied - is there an action I should be casting before?
Yep. You're supposed to ready against actions, because that's how the rules say ready works.
Can I not take my readied action at all? Should I not have been able to ready it in the first place?
No, and no, it shouldn't have been permitted, as I already said in my post. (Which I'll assume you read due to your stance on reading posts.)
Can I only ready if the trigger "condition" is an action (thus making it impossible to ready against natural hazards, among other things)?
Yep.
Jiggy - relax. At Mcbobbos' table "Ready" is kind of like "Delay", but before. I would have to Ready to take my action Before someone else, rather than After (which is a Delay).
Yep.
As long as I know this before the game starts (rather than after), and as long as he does it the same way all the time, and as long as it also applies to everyone/everything else (PC and NPC), I can adjust and live with it. (sorry about the sarcasm here).
I hope you'd be able to count on that, yes.
Ok, so let me get this strait.
You have a high level paladin in shining armor sitting astride his white horse.
The man has been practicing horseback riding since he could walk, and could put three rings through his lance before he could shave.
He's slain dragons, rescued princesses, stood toe to toe with demons and not backed down.
So what you're saying is that when he couches his lance to charge, and someone moves even 5 feet out of the way, his action is wasted, and he has to stand there sputtering like an idiot, unable to act and completely unable to cope with SOMEONE RUNNING AWAY FROM HIM.
When your rules interpretation reaches this level of inanity and unfairness its time to reassess the situation. In this case there's several places where you have perfectly valid interpretations of the rules to help you avoid this. Don't be a munchkin, take them.
Ok, so let me get this strait.
You have a high level paladin in shining armor sitting astride his white horse.
The man has been practicing horseback riding since he could walk, and could put three rings through his lance before he could shave.
He's slain dragons, rescued princesses, stood toe to toe with demons and not backed down.
So what you're saying is that when he couches his lance to charge, and someone moves even 5 feet out of the way, his action is wasted, and he has to stand there sputtering like an idiot, unable to act and completely unable to cope with SOMEONE RUNNING AWAY FROM HIM.
If I believed the rules worked this way, I'd let the paladin recognize that the target was holding his action, and choose to move and attack rather than charge.
There are sometimes simple counters to very constrained actions; that to me is not a reason to believe those simple counters don't actually work.
Ok, so let me get this strait.
You have a high level paladin in shining armor sitting astride his white horse.
The man has been practicing horseback riding since he could walk, and could put three rings through his lance before he could shave.
He's slain dragons, rescued princesses, stood toe to toe with demons and not backed down.
So what you're saying is that when he couches his lance to charge, and someone moves even 5 feet out of the way, his action is wasted, and he has to stand there sputtering like an idiot, unable to act and completely unable to cope with SOMEONE RUNNING AWAY FROM HIM.
When your rules interpretation reaches this level of inanity and unfairness its time to reassess the situation. In this case there's several places where you have perfectly valid interpretations of the rules to help you avoid this. Don't be a munchkin, take them.
False. The lance has reach... and even though he is constrained to his "attack" portion of his charge, he would only be totally screwed by the 5 ft step if he didn't have the reach weapon (like the Barbarian in the example).
Look at my post. During the charge, the character has resolved his move portion already, his attack is interrupted... ready action player attacks and takes a 5-foot-step.... now the charging character's attack continues if he is able.
A person with a lance would be able.
3. Player B charges to the square, and having finished the "move to the closest square" starts to attack.
4. Player A intterupts Player b's turn - and either moves away (but he could just as well attacked and 5 ft stepped).
5. Player B's turn resumes with the ATTACK. He may attack anyone he is adjacent to. However, he may not move again, take a different action etc.
This is where I disagree. A charge is one (indivisible, but interruptible) full-round action. There is no discrete "move portion" and "attack portion". When player A interrupts, the interrupt comes before the attack starts, so when his interruption is over, player B is still in "move to closest square". There is no "between the end of the move and the start of the attack", player B is either moving or attacking, and since he hasn't started attacking yet he must still be moving.
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Some points to clarify/update/exacerbate the debate:
First, cp is right about charge vs. readied basics, and thank you, cp. The attacker loses his attack if the guy moves out of his reach. And gets smacked at for his effort.
Not sure about attacker choosing to continue charge. I'd disallow as the idea of a charging brute smacking the ground when a hero moves is a bit iconic. It's not like brutes are going to miss a touch AC (without a '1' which wouldn't be so much the nimble shift, but an error on the part of the attacker). I'd say the attacker 'is swinging' where he charged, and you move before he follows through. (If he could still reach you, I'd allow it.)
Whether switching to another target is valid is debatable, but I'd say the charger is at his chosen target, swinging, when the guy moves away first. (This causes messy aftereffects as you'll see later.)
Second, it's not a "Wish" spell, guys. Wording is important, but if the defender's readying an attack and step (OP), he's obviously doing it when the attacker gets to him, not before or halfway through the move. (RAW messy? Press FAQ)
Third, you most certainly can take readied actions during somebody's action. Spellcasters are casting their spells when you hit them with an arrow, the arrow hitting beforehand wouldn't hinder them. It hits during, and they've lost their standard action. Not really that different mechanically re: action economy. You're just interrupting the attack by not being in reach when they attack.
Counterargument: But what if I ready actions in melee? When they attack I'm stepping out of reach after hitting them? Ummm, got me there. They can take a 5' step during a full attack, but if they only have one attack, hmmm. Awkward... I suppose if they're already next to you, they can call it a Full Attack, triggering your readied action, then step up when you step back. Man, Step Up feat suddenly looks priceless.
(Now I really want everybody to press FAQ)
Fourth, (3.5 example, unsure if PF compliant) you can take readied actions that (even if you don't want them to) occur after somebody's action. The example given by WotC was a Beholder firing its eye rays. A caster, fearing the Beholder's Anti-Magic Cone ruining his spell, readies to cast when the Beholder's eye rays go off (indicating to the caster the AM Cone is down). The caster's spell goes AFTER the eye rays take their effect, they've fired.
I suppose if the Beholder's eyes glowed before they fired, it'd be different. Or if the player/PC was smart enough to look at magical effects in the party going on/off...
(I had one party nearly wiped out thinking they could ready actions for a dragon's breath and split up with readied move actions. Umm, guys, the frost's been fired. Roll...)
Fifth, the charger's committed to the charge (and therefore why I think he loses it), but to say he follows the target anywhere, through any threat/AoO gauntlet is ridiculous. Really.
(Disagree? Press FAQ)
Sixth, if you do have two squares you can charge, there is often one that's better for pinning down your opponent. Choose wisely.
Seven, tag FAQ on this post if you really have issues. Paizo could write up some samples of ready/charge combos for us, and then we could all be certain. (If anything, I've jumbled my own certainty.)
Or maybe tag it because so many judges are of different opinions. I see charges vs. readied actions quite often. It'd be really nice to have judges ruling consistently on this. (Am aiming to launch PFS in my area soon.)
I don't think the faq is necessary.
If people are TRYING to break a system it will break. If people are trying to read legaleeze into something until it makes no sense or will give them an advantage then it will. You can't write anything that only has one possible meaning, that's why lawyers make so much money.
The rules are stop motion out of neccesity. What you're trying to do is find a loophole in those rules and use it to your benefit in order to deny someone else their action. That should not be allowed, much less encouraged, by rewarding it, ESPECIALLY when several other equally if not more valid interpretations of the same rules stop the munchkining.
Are you even TRYING to get to RAI anymore?
The rules are stop motion out of neccesity. What you're trying to do is find a loophole in those rules and use it to your benefit in order to deny someone else their action. That should not be allowed, much less encouraged, by rewarding it, ESPECIALLY when several other equally if not more valid interpretations of the same rules stop the munchkining.
I disagree. This is about intelligent combatants trying to use tactics to thwart their opponents.
If I can anticipate that you're going to charge me, it is reasonable to ask what sorts of actions are available for me to thwart you. Because what I'm wanting to do is generally reactive, a readied action is a logical candidate for me to do so.
The question is, to what extent can a readied action be used to interrupt a charge, and to what extent can the charger modify their action in response to the interruption?
I may not agree with how some posters believe it will work, but I certainly think it's a reasonable discussion to have.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You can't write anything that only has one possible meaning
Magic: the Gathering did it. Their rules are pretty much interpretation-free at this point. And the game is still thriving. Sure it's a TCG rather than an RPG, but it still serves to show that air-tight rules are a more attainable goal than you seem to think.
What you're trying to do is find a loophole in those rules and use it to your benefit in order to deny someone else their action. That should not be allowed, much less encouraged, by rewarding it, ESPECIALLY when several other equally if not more valid interpretations of the same rules stop the munchkining.
Are you even TRYING to get to RAI anymore?
Beware of the possibility of subconscious prejudice, BNW. I don't know how readies and charges are supposed to interact, so you could well be right. But from your language ("loophole", "munchkining", etc) it's clear that you've already decided that Action X is an offense; something to be discouraged, prohibited, and guarded against. Something people should be scolded for trying, like a child trying to get away with something. It would be very easy for you to let this belief cloud your judgment and skew your interpretation of the facts at hand.
Again, I'm not saying you're acting under prejudice, and I don't even know where I stand on the charging issue anymore - but I'll stick my neck out and say that the prejudice is very clearly there, so I'd just like to caution you lest you let your feelings - rather than your head - make your decisions for you.
Magic: the Gathering did it. Their rules are pretty much interpretation-free at this point.
I might concede this point, but I also might question it. Every time something new is introduced to MTG, they have to issue a dozen rulings to specify exactly how it will interact, and even then there are inconsistencies/paradoxes that come out later and have to either be explicitly resolved or nerfed in some way.
So even if the rules are currently something nearing "air-tight", there are literally thousands of pages of clarifications and interpretations in order to get there, and the rules don't extend any further than the current set of cards in existence.
|
|
Yeah, I'll echo Jiggy and agree that I'm not quite sure where I stand on it now, either.
As I said in my later posts, the free 5-foot step should be a legit readied action, so we're into 'plausible' territory now.
I would share Wolf's concern, though, that this probably isn't balanced. Put it this way, in a world where it works like that, does anyone EVER charge? (Without a reach weapon, anyway...) Probably not.
|
|
So even if the rules are currently something nearing "air-tight", there are literally thousands of pages of clarifications and interpretations in order to get there, and the rules don't extend any further than the current set of cards in existence.
That and unless MtG has changed quite a bit since I was in college, it isn't nearly as complex as something like Pathfinder. It might not be a fair comparison.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Magic: the Gathering did it. Their rules are pretty much interpretation-free at this point.I might concede this point, but I also might question it. Every time something new is introduced to MTG, they have to issue a dozen rulings to specify exactly how it will interact, and even then there are inconsistencies/paradoxes that come out later and have to either be explicitly resolved or nerfed in some way.
So even if the rules are currently something nearing "air-tight", there are literally thousands of pages of clarifications and interpretations in order to get there, and the rules don't extend any further than the current set of cards in existence.
Seems you've been out of the MtG loop a bit, then. ;)
Those "dozen rulings" about how New Thing X interacts with other things are actually just clarifications of what is already present in the structure/function of existing rules.
And there aren't any inconsistencies/paradoxes.
And the rules do extend beyond the current set of cards in existence - very often a new mechanic will be given no new space in the Comprehensive Rules (aside from a notation that it now exists and what its definition is) simply because it works seamlessly within existing rules frameworks. There are no "Word of God" rulings from on high in MtG - every so-called "ruling" is just an explanation of what's already present in the rules. As I sometimes note to players asking questions on my MtG forum of choice, you can reach a point where you know the MtG rules well enough that you don't need to read the clarifications on new mechanics anymore - you can just read their definitions and you're good.
And I can say all this because I'm a certified Rules Advisor (something you have to pass a test every year to keep your certification for).
Can you tell I like rules? <3
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Take this example:
Ranger readies action against a spell being cast.
Wizard, begins casting a spell.
Ranger interrupts and fires arrow at Wizard, hitting him.
Can the wizard change his action to firing his crossbow?
This will help us know if the Barbarian, after moving, starting his attack... and then being interrupted, can halt his attack, move again, or make a different action.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So even if the rules are currently something nearing "air-tight", there are literally thousands of pages of clarifications and interpretations in order to get there, and the rules don't extend any further than the current set of cards in existence.That and unless MtG has changed quite a bit since I was in college, it isn't nearly as complex as something like Pathfinder. It might not be a fair comparison.
I'd wager a guess that it has more discreet rules terms (i.e., words with special definitions in the rules other than their "plain English" meanings - "priority" and "activate" would be MtG examples; "level" and "class" would be PF examples).
Even so, I did note the difference in genres. My point was not intended to be that PF rules could become perfectly airtight, just that they could get a lot closer than I think most players realize. :)
I'm not talking so much about the melee example, that was just a newly found, stunning loophole. RAI, it wouldn't fly, and I'd give 'big, frowny glare' to anybody seriously trying it.
As for the OP:
RAW is messy. Look at how many reputable posters are disagreeing here.
Why?
Readied actions are an exception to the stop motion/turn based mechanics.
Charge, being one action with two components, lends itself to conflict with readied actions.
Both often stir up rules questions on their own.
Together, you get this post heading in circles.
The fact so many judges rule the Charge vs. Ready so differently, means RAI is personal, not communal, which is fine at home as long as all sides play by the same, known rules.
But in organized play there shouldn't be such variance when these two very common actions coincide. This isn't some contrived situation made to be difficult/intriguing, but a situation that happens nearly every session I play. (Where it runs fine because we're on the same page.)
@ BNW: Examples of taking actions from opponents with readied actions are abundant, so don't see your point there. Readied actions have a cost/risk factor and should be better than Delay. The charger may pull and throw a javelin instead, seeing you with your sword cocked back like that. (lose turn) People with multiple attacks are losing the extras. He may charge one of your allies. (lose turn) He may run and get allies. (Doh, I should have charged HIM.)
I admire your intention for making the game eventful, but counter-tactics are equally important IMO.
Yeah, I'll echo Jiggy and agree that I'm not quite sure where I stand on it now, either.
As I said in my later posts, the free 5-foot step should be a legit readied action, so we're into 'plausible' territory now.
I would share Wolf's concern, though, that this probably isn't balanced. Put it this way, in a world where it works like that, does anyone EVER charge? (Without a reach weapon, anyway...) Probably not.
Yes, people would still charge. Because let's not forget, we are talking about a significant corner case here. I consider this on par with counterspelling. There is almost always going to be a better way to spend your turn than readying an action as a purely defensive maneuver. The odds of me looking at the battlefield and deciding that the best thing that ANY character I have ever played or ANY monster I have ever run deciding that his best option at this point is to ready an action to step out of the way of a charge are basically nil. I'm not really worried about this being an "unbalanced" option.
And to the people talking about MtG, as has been pointed out, it has taken them lots of work and clarification to make it "airtight," and those rules also exist in a prescriptive system. In other words, the rules decide what is or is not possible before you ever sit down at the table. Pathfinder, and other such RPGs, exist in a descriptive rule set, where the rules do not tell you what you can or cannot do, but rather attempt to allow everything. This doesn't mean that you can DO anything, but rather that you can ATTEMPT anything, and the rules have to be flexible enough to allow that. You can have an airtight rule set, or you can have a flexible rule set. You are never going to get both.
Seems you've been out of the MtG loop a bit, then. ;)
Nope.
And there aren't any inconsistencies/paradoxes.
I don't believe you. And you don't really believe you, either -- you just know that the ones you've already heard of have also already been either resolved or accepted. The ones you haven't heard of yet, haven't been.
I disagree. This is about intelligent combatants trying to use tactics to thwart their opponents.
Except that the tactics ONLY exploit rules that exist in the game. There's no real world correlation for it. Its not an intelligent tactic for a character to take advantage of something that works in a game, its meta-gaming.
If I can anticipate that you're going to charge me, it is reasonable to ask what sorts of actions are available for me to thwart you. Because what I'm wanting to do is generally reactive, a readied action is a logical candidate for me to do so.
So you have a better chance of running away from the guy on the horse if you wait till after he's already comming at you than if you start running ASAP?
The question is, to what extent can a readied action be used to interrupt a charge, and to what extent can the charger modify their action in response to the interruption?
I may not agree with how some posters believe it will work, but I certainly think it's a reasonable discussion to have.
Magic: the Gathering did it.
.... No.
Beware of the possibility of subconscious prejudice, BNW.
Backhanded, passive aggressive ad hom. There NO call, reason, or justification for this. Knock it off. If you have a problem with my point address it openly. I'm not exactly hiding the fact that I'm taking the interpretation that leads to a sensible conclusion here. I'd need trumpets to announce it louder.
In order for the interrupter to break a charge you need to assume
1) That raw is only raw when the interrupter wants it to be. Specifically that there is something requiring the charger to go in a strait line, and that towards the opponent does not mean towards the opponent.
2) That the charge action can be broken down into its component move and attack actions. This is debatable.
I don't know how readies and charges are supposed to interact, so you could well be right. But from your language ("loophole", "munchkining", etc) it's clear that you've already decided that Action X is an offense; something to be discouraged, prohibited, and guarded against. Something people should be scolded for trying, like a child trying to get away with something. It would be very easy for you to let this belief cloud your judgment and skew your interpretation of the facts at hand.
If you think thats happening present an air tight case against my interpretation. Until that happens you have at best 2 valid interpretations, one of which allows everyone to use their actions and the other which exploits the rules mechanics into breaking down into "error, no legal action"
so I'd just like to caution you lest you let your feelings - rather than your head - make your decisions for you.
The intent of the rules is valid component in deciding their meaning, and peoples willingness to exploit loopholes is a valid concern when looking at someones "interpretation"
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And there aren't any inconsistencies/paradoxes.I don't believe you. And you don't really believe you, either -- you just know that the ones you've already heard of have also already been either resolved or accepted. The ones you haven't heard of yet, haven't been.
I defy you to find one.
Note that I didn't say there have never been any, but that there aren't any and haven't been in years. So pulling up a 15-year-old controversy doesn't count. But bring up a current/recently resolved inconsistency in MtG rules, and I'll come back into this thread and tell everyone how awesome you are.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Stuff
Hold on a second, I didn't mean any offense! All I was doing was pointing out my speculation and trying to caution you - I was honestly just trying to help. I wasn't trying to be "backhanded" or "aggressive", nor was I even contesting your point (as you appear to have thought).
All I was trying to say was "I see signs of prejudice - consider checking yourself". It really was intended to be helpful.
I defy you to find one.
Note that I didn't say there have never been any, but that there aren't any and haven't been in years.
How many years?
When, exactly, was the last inconsistency or paradox in Magic rules resolved?
I claim that some clarifying text, errata, or ruling is needed pretty consistently. You claim that the rules have stood by themselves for years. How far back, exactly, are you willing to make this claim? I'd like to know that if I do come up with a counterexample, you're not going to move the goalposts.
Well, I can see where peoples hot buttons are.
And you're deliberately pressing them.
Reminds me of the player who was offended when I cast Sleep on the bad guys,
Strawman. None of those things are against the rules. Readying an action to move out of the way of a charge and saying "thats raw i can do it" is fine, but whining when the the guy on a horse follows you and then switching to "hey! thats not rai! he's supposed to go in a strait line!" is disingenuous cheese.
Anyway, BigNorseWolf, I am trying to learn the rules system, the way things work (most of the time, at most tables). Will I use the way they work to my advantage? Sure, that's why my Tank buys armor - so that it protects him. (RAW). That's why my Wizard has a high INT, so that the DC for his spells are high (RAW again)(and he gets more spells and skills etc). I'm using the rules of the game.
this is more like trying to create water inside someone's skull to give them a concussion.
And one more I need to reply to, this is a reworking of BNWs example of the paladin above. I'm using CAPS for my changes
This made no sense, changed everything, completely missed the point, and served no apparent purpose except to attempt to make me sound like an idiot. Parody is an art, you are a butcher.
|
|
Yep. You're supposed to ready against actions, because...
Coming to the party late here, but I have some brain droppings for everyone.
@mcbobbo - i've seen you post in other threads and consider you to be quite astute in rulings and interpreting. I feel your interpretation of this one is perhaps too focused - I don't think you're wrong, I just don't think it is meant to be as rigid as you proclaim. Though I am in no official position to say so - just my interpretation.
That being said - so long as you consistently use your interpretation it is regimented enough to not allow wacky loopholes to exist etc.
On the other hand, I see "ready and action" towards a situation/condition (not the game term of condition i.e. dazed) to be able to fullfill the following:
wizard balancing on a narrow ledge states "I ready an action - I fall I cast fly"
He's giving up his turn in the initiative order to be prepared should something cause him to fall.
I see your interpretation as right - just not sure I agree that it only extends to that.
Spanish Bull fighter (called a Picador or something like that, the guy that has the sticks, not the cape) is charged, steps aside and as the bull thunders past, stabs it on the shoulders with the barbed sticks.
That's part of the attack roll. Note that it isn't automatic (they do get hit sometimes)
But that doesn't count - we aren't in the real world. Just because it really works that way doesn't mean it does in PF! (sorry guy, sarcasm again)
My mouth, MY words. Your mouth, YOUR words. Don't equate the two.
Football field. Me. Defensive lineman lunges (charge) at me and seeing him headed my way I side step. Happens all the time.
It's a classic. to qoute Mohammed Ali "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee"
again, thats the mechanic the attack roll takes care of, not finagling the ready rules based on , at best, questionable interpretations.
Big Norse Wolf:
Charge states that it is a full round action in which you must make a double move and then attack from the nearest location possible.
If I ready an action against an attack, this means that the attack portion is about to happen and cannot stop from happening.
Similar to a CASTING portion of "Ready vs Cast" is about to happen and cannot stop from happening.
Do you think I am correct in these assessments?
If I can anticipate that you're going to charge me, it is reasonable to ask what sorts of actions are available for me to thwart you. Because what I'm wanting to do is generally reactive, a readied action is a logical candidate for me to do so.So you have a better chance of running away from the guy on the horse if you wait till after he's already comming at you than if you start running ASAP?
As Nosig pointed out, yes... kind of.
You don't have a better chance of getting away in the long term, no. But what you do have a better chance of is dodging the initial incoming blow.
If you are on a horse and you are charging at me, horse going full gallop, lance couched, then you have a great deal of forward momentum and a great deal of weight behind it. It is what makes a charge powerful. If I know this is coming, and I dodge aside at just the last moment, there isn't a great deal you can do about it. It is hard to turn a horse who is galloping full tilt.
However, I haven't actually gotten away from you, and I would be further if I had just done a full sprint from the start. All that I have done is dodged the first blow.
|
|
To follow up on my response to mcbobbo:
If by your strictest sense of the rules as written is an "action" is an "action" and thus only an in game defined "action" can be used as the contingency in a readied action, the as I see it, "Charge" in and of itself IS the action.
Charge is defined as a type of action.
Thus if Z "ready's to X if/when Y charges" then my action happens before he even moves.
"Y begins to charge"
"Z performs X"
"Y stays right where he is"?
Officially his charge "action" never happened. She he hasn't moved yet, could he not just charge to Z's new location (provided his path is not blocked).
Robert
Big Norse Wolf:
Charge states that it is a full round action in which you must make a double move and then attack from the nearest location possible.
If I ready an action against an attack, this means that the attack portion is about to happen and cannot stop from happening.
Similar to a CASTING portion of "Ready vs Cast" is about to happen and cannot stop from happening.
Do you think I am correct in these assessments?
It is debatable whether charge can be broken up like this. It is a single full-round action. It isn't a double move (which is a specific combination of standard and move actions) followed by an attack. It is a single action in which you move up to twice your speed, but no less than 10' and make a single melee attack at the end of the movement.
I am with you that a readied side-step can avoid this, but not for the reasons you think this. I think it because as a full-round action, the charge must be fully declared before it begins. Once it is declared, that's what happens. If circumstances change, you can't change your declaration. It isn't because you've moved "past" the move section and "into" the attack section of the action. The action isn't divided like that.
You lose the attack because it is no longer valid and can't move more because that isn't the action you declared (and as charges rely heavily on momentum, they are very difficult -- i.e., impossible -- to change midway through). It isn't that you can't move more because you have stopped moving. Similarly, you can't change your attack to hit someone else, even if you threaten them. Because that isn't the action you declared.
How about a rules change to resolve a paradox earlier this year?
301.7, 303.4i
Okay, here's a fun one. Let's imagine you have a Myr Welder that's exiled a Demonspine Whip and a Transmogrifying Licid. (Someone in the rules forum actually imagined this.) You activate the Licid's ability to attach the Myr Welder to another creature. The Myr Welder is no longer a creature at this point and is just an Aura enchantment, so this works nicely. It still has the Demonspine Whip's ability, which says ": Equipped creature gets +X/+0 until end of turn." Is the creature Myr Welder's attached to the "equipped creature?"For even more fun, imagine the creature above is a Kor Duelist. There isn't an Equipment attached to it, so it's not equipped, so it doesn't have double strike. But at the same time, if Myr Welder's ability sees it as the "equipped creature," it would give it a bonus. Well, that's weird. So we drew some harder lines.
Enchanted, equipped, and fortified are all ways for one object to be attached to another, but they are not interchangeable. For an ability that refers to the "equipped creature" to function, that ability must be on an Equipment. The same is true for Auras and abilities that refer to the "enchanted creature." Ditto Fortifications and "fortified land." These two rules address this issue.
Yes, these are corner cases -- and yes, they are usually either dealt with as the cards are coming out, or soon after the paradox/inconsistency is uncovered. But MTG has always been and continues to be a game of staggering complexity and innumerable exceptions, and it is by no means a rigorously complete system. I really don't believe any game system with as many different cards, mechanics, and interactions as it has will ever be.
Do you think I am correct in these assessments?
No.
You said
Charge states that it is a full round action in which you must make a double moveRaw says
You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed
It does not say you are making a double move.
If I ready an action against an attack, this means that the attack portion is about to happen and cannot stop from happening.
Similar to a CASTING portion of "Ready vs Cast" is about to happen and cannot stop from happening.
There is no attack "portion" Charge is its own discreet action, not a move and attack action, as stated above.
@BNW: You were one of the first posters on this site that I keyed in as having astute and reasonable rules interpretations. I have a list sitting on my computer desk, so I don't have to remember everybody's names. You are #2. So don't take offense if I say...
Your anger is palpable, your reason is masked by it. Jiggy was not being passive aggressive, and your language was, and continues to be, inflammatory. (Please don't hurt me.)
(And I'd love playing in a game you ran, BTW, where you could hurt me all you'd like. Just don't kill me until I can afford it. :))
The examples you didn't understand:
re: goblin on a mule, is to say that the situation of dodging a charger is possible. Why can't the better Paladin pull it off? Well, then it gets messy (and why we have two camps).
re: the barbarian chopping down the tree: Is to say that this player became a JUDGE, and was very subjective on how the game is run, even on things we all here take for granted. Some people don't want such subjectivity, and want an objective ruling.
(If so, FAQ my first post about 1/3-1/2 down from the top on this page.)
For now, let's agree to disagree, and hope Paizo steps in to arbitrate,
JMK