(peeks head in, with readied action to duck if anyone is still shooting)...yep! (ducks! I'll check back in the morning.)
Sorry, i'll try not to post till after lunch next time...
And since he is no longer capable of casting magic missile at you, he does not continue his action. Whether or not he loses the spell is debatable. But the fact that he has spent his standard action I don't really see as being so.Obviously he hasn't spent his standard action or else he would have magic missled you.
But then if I, instead of readying to drop prone, had readied to attack him to disrupt his spellcasting when he starts casting (the specific trigger that RAW calls for), and I hit with my attack, then he should have the option of not casting, but instead doing something else, which would be particularly valuable if I rolled very high damage.
(peeks head in, with readied action to duck if anyone is still shooting)...yep! (ducks! I'll check back in the morning.)
For what it is worth--and I point this out less in regards to your joking comment and more for those people who were saying Gronk should ready to attack if the kobold moves, and then move adjacent to him--you can't ready an action and then move and then have the readied action trigger. Once you ready an action, it remains readied until you do something else, but the moment you take another action, you lose the ready.
But then if I, instead of readying to drop prone, had readied to attack him to disrupt his spellcasting when he starts casting (the specific trigger that RAW calls for), and I hit with my attack, then he should have the option of not casting, but instead doing something else, which would be particularly valuable if I rolled very high damage.
There's a mechanism for attacks making a spell fizzle with a readied action attack, and its not guaranteed. There's no mechanism for interrupting an action by making it illegal with a readied action, and i think the immortal dancing Kobold there shows why its a bad idea to go down that route.
But then if I, instead of readying to drop prone, had readied to attack him to disrupt his spellcasting when he starts casting (the specific trigger that RAW calls for), and I hit with my attack, then he should have the option of not casting, but instead doing something else, which would be particularly valuable if I rolled very high damage.There's a mechanism for attacks making a spell fizzle with a readied action attack, and its not guaranteed. There's no mechanism for interrupting an action by making it illegal with a readied action, and i think the immortal dancing Kobold there shows why its a bad idea to go down that route.
But the dancing kobold isn't immortal. He can successfully keep 1 person at bay so long as he has infinite space to move, that person does not have reach, a reach weapon, or a ranged weapon, and never learns and adapts his strategy to anything besides "move up and attack."
But the mechanism for attacks making a spell fizzle implies that once an action has been declared and triggered any ready actions that trigger on it, it cannot be changed. The rules say that if a readied action makes it so you are not able to complete the triggering action, then you stop. You are trying to say that that means you get back the action you invested in that.
Sufficiently high damage would make the concentration check impossible, meaning that you cannot complete the spell casting action. Should you get the spell and the action back?
EDIT: And I am not willing to accept "it is a bad idea to go down that route." The game system is supposed to be able to model anything. Which means I should be able to attempt anything. I want to be able to attempt the iconic action of ducking aside at the last moment of a charge. Why shouldn't the rules be able to model this when they have exactly the right tools to do so?
|
And since he is no longer capable of casting magic missile at you, he does not continue his action. Whether or not he loses the spell is debatable. But the fact that he has spent his standard action I don't really see as being so.Obviously he hasn't spent his standard action or else he would have magic missled you.
And I totally see this side of the arguement. There is a part of me that says the wizard can opt to select a different target.
But at least "you" wont be the recipient of said magic missles. How to dodge a wizard and screw your friends in one book.
Robert
|
|
(peeks head in, with readied action to duck if anyone is still shooting)...yep! (ducks! I'll check back in the morning.)For what it is worth--and I point this out less in regards to your joking comment and more for those people who were saying Gronk should ready to attack if the kobold moves, and then move adjacent to him--you can't ready an action and then move and then have the readied action trigger. Once you ready an action, it remains readied until you do something else, but the moment you take another action, you lose the ready.
In which case, Gronk moving the 5' towards teh kobold and NOT ATTACKING is the way to go; Instead moving up 5' and "READYING" and attck.
In this case you're readying AFTER moving; not before so should still be a valid option.
This forces the kobolds clawed-hand to decide what to do on it's turn. Attack (getting readied action attack for it's efforts) and move (getting possible AoO, too)? or merely 5' to avoid the AoO (making him now prime target for Gronks next turn 5' step and full-attack - since Gronk is now going before kobold thanks to his own readied action being triggered). Withdraw? Full attack? Surrender?
Robert
And since he is no longer capable of casting magic missile at you, he does not continue his action. Whether or not he loses the spell is debatable. But the fact that he has spent his standard action I don't really see as being so.Obviously he hasn't spent his standard action or else he would have magic missled you.
And I totally see this side of the arguement. There is a part of me that says the wizard can opt to select a different target.
But at least "you" wont be the recipient of said magic missles. How to dodge a wizard and screw your friends in one book.
Robert
Did a bit of reading and found this:
Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
So if I duck behind the wall, the wizard can redirect the spell to someone else. However, I still say that if there are no valid targets, the spell is wasted:
If you ever try to cast a spell in conditions where the characteristics of the spell cannot be made to conform, the casting fails and the spell is wasted.
EDIT: Thus, the caster is ABLE to continue casting, even after all valid targets have fled, and so, per the ready rules, he must. THEN, since the characteristics of the spell cannot conform to the conditions, the casting fails and the spell is wasted.
(peeks head in, with readied action to duck if anyone is still shooting)...yep! (ducks! I'll check back in the morning.)For what it is worth--and I point this out less in regards to your joking comment and more for those people who were saying Gronk should ready to attack if the kobold moves, and then move adjacent to him--you can't ready an action and then move and then have the readied action trigger. Once you ready an action, it remains readied until you do something else, but the moment you take another action, you lose the ready.In which case, Gronk moving the 5' towards teh kobold and NOT ATTACKING is the way to go; Instead moving up 5' and "READYING" and attck.
In this case you're readying AFTER moving; not before so should still be a valid option.
This forces the kobolds clawed-hand to decide what to do on it's turn. Attack (getting readied action attack for it's efforts) and move (getting possible AoO, too)? or merely 5' to avoid the AoO (making him now prime target for Gronks next turn 5' step and full-attack - since Gronk is now going before kobold thanks to his own readied action being triggered). Withdraw? Full attack? Surrender?
Robert
Why is Gronk only readying to attack if the kobold attacks? Why doesn't Gronk ready to attack if the kobold does anything?
But the dancing kobold isn't immortal. He can successfully keep 1 person at bay so long as he has infinite space to move,
He doesn't need infinite space to move around in, just enough to go in a circle.
that person does not have reach, a reach weapon, or a ranged weapon, and never learns and adapts his strategy to anything besides "move up and attack."
Making melee attacks go fizzle by interrupted actions is a good way to keep melee gnashing their teeth in frustration.
But the mechanism for attacks making a spell fizzle implies that once an action has been declared and triggered any ready actions that trigger on it, it cannot be changed.
No, it doesn't, because that spell was interrupted MID cast. Moving BEFORE the spell is cast or before the sword is swung is not the same thing.
The rules say that if a readied action makes it so you are not able to complete the triggering action, then you stop.
No, they don't. Yes, i did read it. Yes i saw what you bolded, no, i don't need to re read it.
You are trying to say that that means you get back the action you invested in that.
Sufficiently high damage would make the concentration check impossible, meaning that you cannot complete the spell casting action. Should you get the spell and the action back?I did not say this.
I have never said this.
I have never implied this.
I am not implying this. Damaging a spellcaster ruins the spell IN THE MIDDLE of the casting. You cannot dodge a swing in the middle of the swing or duck behind cover in the middle of the spell, your readied action goes BEFORE the swing or the spell.
EDIT: And I am not willing to accept "it is a bad idea to go down that route." The game system is supposed to be able to model anything. Which means I should be able to attempt anything. I want to be able to attempt the iconic action of ducking aside at the last moment of a charge. Why shouldn't the rules be able to model this when they have exactly the right tools to do so?Because the rules should also model the fact that a charging horse or orc is not a laser beam, they can veer a little, but they don't.
Its not thematic or interesting if you can ALWAYS dodge a melee attack with held actions. That's the job of an attack roll. If you want to get out of the way of a guy on horseback get a high armor class.
Why is Gronk only readying to attack if the kobold attacks? Why doesn't Gronk ready to attack if the kobold does anything?
Readied actions need a specific trigger. Anything is insufficiently specific.
No, it doesn't, because that spell was interrupted MID cast. Moving BEFORE the spell is cast or before the sword is swung is not the same thing.
The rules say that if a readied action makes it so you are not able to complete the triggering action, then you stop.No, they don't. Yes, i did read it. Yes i saw what you bolded, no, i don't need to re read it.
(1) When you ready an action to interrupt a spell caster, you ready to attack "when she begins casting." That is what the book says. It also says that a ready action goes off before the action which creates the triggering condition. In this case, the attack would go off BEFORE she starts casting her spell, not in the middle of it.
(2) You say you read the rules, and that you don't need to reread, so I guess I won't recopy them here. But I am curious in general how you would keep doing an action which you are not able to do... Or is there some other implication there which you were going for, since I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Readied actions need a specific trigger. Anything is insufficiently specific.
Why? All it says is "[S]pecify 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."
There is nothing in there about the condition needing to be specific. I choose "the kobold does something" as my condition. This is akin to "move, and I shoot."
|
|
Why? All it says is "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 first word is SPECIFY.
It says to SPECIFY the action AND the condition that must be met before acting.
"Anything" is not specifying. That's Vagueifying.
Robert
|
Why? All it says is "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 first word is SPECIFY.
It says to SPECIFY the action AND the condition that must be met before acting.
"Anything" is not specifying. That's Vagueifying.
Robert
I agree, but I also had to comment...
Vagueifying?! LOL
Why? All it says is "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 first word is SPECIFY.
It says to SPECIFY the action AND the condition that must be met before acting.
"Anything" is not specifying. That's Vagueifying.
Robert
I agree, but I also had to comment...
Vagueifying?! LOL
We're getting off topic, but... OK
The specific action Gronk should take is attacking the kobold
The specific condition which will trigger the action is the kobold attempting to do something. (EDIT: by taking an action.)
There is absolutely nothing anywhere in the rules about what is or is not specific enough of a trigger.
Here are some "vague" but perfectly reasonable readied actions:
"I shoot anything which comes through that door with my bow."
"I attack the first of these three people adjacent to me to move away."
"I shoot the first flat-footed person I see within 30' with my hand crossbow"
"I cast purge invisibility when I hear something which resembles footsteps and cannot see the source."
You can be as specific or as vague as you want with the trigger conditions. The downside to vague trigger conditions is that they happen regardless. If Gronk sets a readied action of "I attack the kobold if he takes an action," and the kobold then says "I surrender" as a free action, then Gronk attacks him.
(1) When you ready an action to interrupt a spell caster, you ready to attack "when she begins casting." That is what the book says. It also says that a ready action goes off before the action which creates the triggering condition. In this case, the attack would go off BEFORE she starts casting her spell, not in the middle of it.
To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting , you must make a concentration check or lose the spell.
If you want to say that the arrow happens before the spell go ahead. It means that the wizard isn't interrupted.
(2) You say you read the rules, and that you don't need to reread, so I guess I won't recopy them here. But I am curious in general how you would keep doing an action which you are not able to do... Or is there some other implication there which you were going for, since I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Easy. You change your action. If you've moved 25 feet and the kobold backs up YOU KEEP WALKING and then use the attack you haven't used yet.
There is nothing in there about the condition needing to be specific.
[S]pecify <-------
(1) When you ready an action to interrupt a spell caster, you ready to attack "when she begins casting." That is what the book says. It also says that a ready action goes off before the action which creates the triggering condition. In this case, the attack would go off BEFORE she starts casting her spell, not in the middle of it.To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting , you must make a concentration check or lose the spell.
If you want to say that the arrow happens before the spell go ahead. It means that the wizard isn't interrupted.
(2) You say you read the rules, and that you don't need to reread, so I guess I won't recopy them here. But I am curious in general how you would keep doing an action which you are not able to do... Or is there some other implication there which you were going for, since I don't want to put words in your mouth.Easy. You change your action. If you've moved 25 feet and the kobold backs up YOU KEEP WALKING and then use the attack you haven't used yet.
There is nothing in there about the condition needing to be specific.[S]pecify <-------
(1) The rules for readied actions and interrupting a spellcaster specifically :p say that you ready an action to attack as they begin casting. Since a readied action goes off before the trigger condition, that means that the attack happens and is resolved before they begin casting. However, they still have to make a concentration check or lose the spell. Thus, there is RAW precedent for you being unable to change a declared, but unstarted action if the conditions are changed because of a readied action.
(2) By the same logic as above. If I am moving 25' and then attacking. First, I move 25' as a move action. My move action completed, I attack the adjacent kobold. The kobold's readied action goes off before my attack, but after my move action, and he 5' steps back. Now clearly I have finished my move action. I have 30' of movement per round, but only 1 move action, and I have spent that.
I think that based on the precedent of the interrupted spellcaster, I still have burnt my standard action on the attack and can't change my action at this point, but even if I haven't, I have no move actions left to close the distance. Best case scenario, I have to spend my standard action to move those 5'. Since my move action already ended, I have to spend another action to move.
(3) First of all, you guys are being pedantic insisting that "specify" requires a specific level of specificity. From wiktionary: Specify, verb, "(transitive) To state explicitly, or in detail, or as a condition."
So you have to state the conditions which will trigger you readied action as a condition... alright. The conditions which will trigger's Gronk's readied action are the kobold attempting an action besides speaking.
You have put an arbitrary line on the ground not backed by the rules at all for what is specific enough or not for something which does not even require specificity (specify !=> specific; specify => as a condition)
|
|
"I shoot anything which comes through that door with my bow."
"I attack the first of these three people adjacent to me to move away."
"I shoot the first flat-footed person I see within 30' with my hand crossbow"
"I cast purge invisibility when I hear something which resembles footsteps and cannot see the source."
But all of these scenarios are more specific than "anything".
If you're using mcBobbo's use and interpretation, none of these are sufficient triggers as he indicates you must specify a specific action (action as defined by an in-game rules action in the combat section) of a specific person.
A person being "flat-footed" for instance isnt taking an actual in-game action.
For the record, I do not necessarily agree that it has to be this way - I see all of your examples as valid for my DMing style.
Of course "shooting anything that comes through that door - could be a bad thing if it happens to be your dog for instance coming in for dinner."
Sometimes being vague with your your specificness is a bad idea.
Robert
We're getting off topic, but... OK
Actually, I think this is very on-topic. I've been following this back and forth for a while and it seems that a lot of the disagreement could be squelched by the GM asserting what can or can not be used for a trigger.
A lot of these triggers are relying on game terms to trigger or don't account for the simultaneous nature of combat that the rules are trying to simulate.
This is where the GM needs to apply some common sense. I doubt we all have the same notion of what the common sense approach is to each of cases discussed so far. I don't think there is one right answer that will work in all cases.
I'm going to try to make sure that I don't allow triggers that lead to obvious paradoxes. Take the magic missile case as an example. Don't allow the trigger to lead to the paradox of the target not being a legitimate target. If the target wants to drop when magic missile is cast, he needs to see it cast to make his spellcraft check. By the time he figures out it is magic missile being cast on him, it means it was already cast and he was hit. If he changes the trigger to be when the mage casts anything. Fine, the magic reaches into his spell component pouch and begins to mumble. He drops prone before the spell is cast, but now the mage can choose another action. (And please don't try to rules lawyer this example, picking on spellcraft and "as its being cast" etc. It is just a rough example of not allowing a trigger than leads to a paradox).
"I shoot anything which comes through that door with my bow."
"I attack the first of these three people adjacent to me to move away."
"I shoot the first flat-footed person I see within 30' with my hand crossbow"
"I cast purge invisibility when I hear something which resembles footsteps and cannot see the source."
But all of these scenarios are more specific than "anything".
If you're using mcBobbo's use and interpretation, none of these are sufficient triggers as he indicates you must specify a specific action (action as defined by an in-game rules action in the combat section) of a specific person.
A person being "flat-footed" for instance isnt taking an actual in-game action.
For the record, I do not necessarily agree that it has to be this way - I see all of your examples as valid for my DMing style.
Of course "shooting anything that comes through that door - could be a bad thing if it happens to be your dog for instance coming in for dinner."
Sometimes being vague with your your specificness is a bad idea.
Robert
I agree that vagueness can be a bad idea, and gave such an example of why it would be a bad idea for Gronk to ready an action to attack the kobold if he does anything, seeing as surrendering counts as anything.
Gronk could instead ready an action to attack the kobold if he takes a move action, a standard action, a full-round action, a free action, a swift action, an immediate action, or a non-action. But it seems like just saying "If the kobold does anything, I attack" is a good shorthand for that.
And the rules are stupidly vague on what you can ready against or not, but seeing as you can ready against a charge, and the readied action happens before the triggered action, if you couldn't ready against a condition (target is charging me and within reach), but only against an action (target charges me), then you wouldn't be able to ready against a charge, since the ready would trigger before the charge and while they are far outside of your reach (barring 15+' reach).
So, I say that you can ready for a condition. Thus, attack the first flat-footed thing.
|
|
(2) By the same logic as above. If I am moving 25' and then attacking. First, I move 25' as a move action. My move action completed, I attack the adjacent kobold. The kobold's readied action goes off before my attack, but after my move action, and he 5'...
For the record I agree with both you and BigNorse. The fact that you both disagree on what I agree with the both of you on, is a big conundrum' because clearly I see both sides of the arguement and both sides made perfect sense to me.
So while I use to know how it all worked; now thanks to me opting click into this thread I'm confused as all hell.
On another note: I do not agree that "if the kobold does anything other than speak" is specific enough - but your mileage may vary.
Otherwise it's just as plausible to say "if the kobold does anything other than grant me a wish" or "If the kobold does anything other than grow gills and start breathing like a fish."
Its times like this that makes mcbobbo's point so valid - by not requiring a specific action to be notated, then how vague or specific your condition you mention is merely subjective in how one stratifies it's level of specificity or vagueificity.
Robert
|
|
(And please don't try to rules lawyer this example, picking on spellcraft and "as its being cast" etc. It is just a rough example of not allowing a trigger than leads to a paradox).
No by all means that makes total sense and not any sense at the same time.
If you opt to go prone to protect yourself from MM, you must know he's casting MM; unless the wizard foolishly declares "I'm going to cast magic missle at you."
So assuming you know he's casting magic missile at you, via the fact that he IS casting it, and you duck down, then that indicates that the wizard DID in fact start casting the spell.
So that goes to shed light that the action DID start, and you went prone DURING the casting, thus the standard action DID get started.
And now cannot finish. And now as someone pointed out - the valid target must be seen when you FINISH the spell - thus meaning the spell never finished; but the standard action started.
So people saying that you never started it and can then change your action is invalid.
But now if we say that you cannot make such an action because it'll create a paradox; now those people have a valid point and you didn't necessarily start the action because you couldn't even start it.
My head hurts. I need a drink.
I still say - we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Robert
We're getting off topic, but... OK
Actually, I think this is very on-topic. I've been following this back and forth for a while and it seems that a lot of the disagreement could be squelched by the GM asserting what can or can not be used for a trigger.
A lot of these triggers are relying on game terms to trigger or don't account for the simultaneous nature of combat that the rules are trying to simulate.
This is where the GM needs to apply some common sense. I doubt we all have the same notion of what the common sense approach is to each of cases discussed so far. I don't think there is one right answer that will work in all cases.
I'm going to try to make sure that I don't allow triggers that lead to obvious paradoxes. Take the magic missile case as an example. Don't allow the trigger to lead to the paradox of the target not being a legitimate target. If the target wants to drop when magic missile is cast, he needs to see it cast to make his spellcraft check. By the time he figures out it is magic missile being cast on him, it means it was already cast and he was hit. If he changes the trigger to be when the mage casts anything. Fine, the magic reaches into his spell component pouch and begins to mumble. He drops prone before the spell is cast, but now the mage can choose another action. (And please don't try to rules lawyer this example, picking on spellcraft and "as its being cast" etc. It is just a rough example of not allowing a trigger than leads to a paradox).
Here is how I would resolve that paradox:
Robby the Rogue readies an action to drop prone behind a wall if Sammy the Sorcerer begins casting.
Sammy the Sorcerer begins casting magic missile with the intention of targeting Robby.
Robby drops prone.
Sammy casts. Per the magic rules I quoted above, Sammy does not actually have to select his target until he finishes casting his spell (this is why you choose where summons appear as they appear, not on the round before when you started casting).
Thus, if there is another valid target within range, Sammy can cast the spell on them instead. If there is not a valid target in range, then the clause also quoted above triggers, which says that if the conditions cannot conform to those required by the spell, it fizzles and is lost.
***********
I'm not trying to rules lawyer this specific example or anything, and agree that a trigger should not be able to lead to a paradox. The easiest way to resolve this, though, is to say that an actor cannot change the nature of their action in response to readied actions taken against it. If you cast magic missile and then your target disappears, you pick a new target or lose the spell.
If you attack someone and then they drop out of range, you attack the air and lose the action.
If you charge someone and they move to a non-chargable square, you charge nothing and lose the charge.
We only get to paradoxes when we say that readied actions can reach forward in time to predict what is coming ahead and that what is coming ahead can then react to this prescience. Instead, let's just say that readying an action means you are looking specifically for the motions which precede an action (winding up for a strike, grabbing for components, etc.) and reacting to that. By that time, it is too late for the actor to change their action.
And yeah, if Sammy KNEW that Robby had readied an action to fall prone if Sammy casts, then I would definitely let Sammy make a bluff check against Robby's sense motive (probably applying distance penalties as perception), to trick Robby into thinking that he was casting and forcing the trigger to go off.
Thus, there is RAW precedent for you being unable to change a declared, but unstarted action if the conditions are changed because of a readied action.
No, there isn't. You're combining two disparate and general rules for the specific case, which clearly, directly, and unequivocally states that the caster must be hit DURING the casting of their spell in order to be interrupted.
|
|
Thus, there is RAW precedent for you being unable to change a declared, but unstarted action if the conditions are changed because of a readied action.No, there isn't. You're combining two disparate and general rules for the specific case, which clearly, directly, and unequivocally states that the caster must be hit DURING the casting of their spell in order to be interrupted.
See my point??? LOL I love this.
I ready an action to hit the wizard if he casts to disrupt his spell; readying an action says I can do that.
He starts to cast, I hit him.
Readied actions state that they take place BEFORE his action....so he never really started. If he never really started; why did I attack him, and since he didn't start I didn't damage him during so the spell is not wasted.
You mean I wasted my time readying an action for that? I should have attacked the wizard earler!
BUT
We all know that this is the classic way to disrupt a spellcaster.
Nuke the wizard from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Robert
Thus, there is RAW precedent for you being unable to change a declared, but unstarted action if the conditions are changed because of a readied action.No, there isn't. You're combining two disparate and general rules for the specific case, which clearly, directly, and unequivocally states that the caster must be hit DURING the casting of their spell in order to be interrupted.
They are not disparate and general. There is the general rule about readied actions which says that a readied action goes off BEFORE the action which triggered it.
And there is the specific rule from the exact same section (the readying an action section) which says:
Distracting Spellcasters
You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger "if she starts casting a spell." If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Spellcraft check result).
Since the rule 3 paragraphs above says that readied actions resolve before the triggering action, the readied action of attack is resolved before the triggering action of "she starts casting a spell."
I am not combining disparate rules. They are in the same section, within 3 paragraphs. Nor are they general. They are the exact specific rules for how to ready an action to distract a spellcaster and thus they supercede the more general rule which says that if a spellcaster takes damage while casting a spell (which can, without readied actions, only happen with spells with a casting time of a full round or more), they must make a concentration check or lose it.
This is a SPECIFIC exception to that GENERAL rule.
Cast defensively 15 + double spell level
------>Injured while casting 10 + damage dealt + spell level
Continuous damage while casting 10 + 1/2 damage dealt + spell level
Affected by a non-damaging spell while casting DC of the spell + spell level
Grappled or pinned while casting 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level
Vigorous motion while casting 10 + spell level
Violent motion while casting 15 + spell level
Extremely violent motion while casting 20 + spell level
Wind with rain or sleet while casting 5 + spell level
Wind with hail and debris while casting 10 + spell level
Weather caused by spell see spell
Entangled while casting
You are injured WHILE casting, not before casting. If you were injured before casting it wouldn't do anything.
If you attack someone and then they drop out of range, you attack the air and lose the action.
You could always cast it at the darkness!
Robert
Yes. And if there was an invisible person there, then you would have a 50% chance of hitting them.
Cast defensively 15 + double spell level
------>Injured while casting 10 + damage dealt + spell level
Continuous damage while casting 10 + 1/2 damage dealt + spell level
Affected by a non-damaging spell while casting DC of the spell + spell level
Grappled or pinned while casting 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level
Vigorous motion while casting 10 + spell level
Violent motion while casting 15 + spell level
Extremely violent motion while casting 20 + spell level
Wind with rain or sleet while casting 5 + spell level
Wind with hail and debris while casting 10 + spell level
Weather caused by spell see spell
Entangled while castingYou are injured WHILE casting, not before casting. If you were injured before casting it wouldn't do anything.
And that is the general rule. Readied actions present a specific exception to that. I've laid out exactly how it works. Where is my logic wrong? (and please don't just say that if you are injured before casting it won't do anything; I am presenting a RAW exception).
You're assuming that The readied action occurring before the action that triggered it is the specific rule, when it is in fact the more general rule. How else would a caster get damaged in the middle of casting if it wasn't by a readied action (since continuous damage is already covered by a different DC)
Woowee, I didn't know my melee example would lead to this immortal kobold, but, ya' know, I'm sorta proud. :) Maybe it'll become a board trope. (Though I have to share credit with whoever made it a kobold. Funny how it's always a kobold in these things...)
I completely agree with the charge avoidance, but because it leads to the immortal kobold (IK), I defer to Paizo about the charge (and why the two 'should' be different).
(Haven't FAQed? Please do.)
Taking care of side business.
Specify, yes, shares the same root as specific, but if I specify this kobold instead of that kobold (or door, PC, etc.) I am specifying. If I specify bodily movement instead of facial gestures, I am specifying.
It means making 'more' specific/less vague as much as making specific/not vague.
Now can we get back to the main discussion?
As for the IK:
While all the legal wrangling is fun, who would actually allow the kobold to do this? You'd piss your players off and even the players who like the puzzle will end up delaying the game, as they get poked over and over.
And it's all funny with a kobold poking, but who wants to face the immortal 'CR appropriate Barbarian with same stats' this way?
(It's all fun and games until someone gets a Greataxe in the eye.)
Here's the solution to the IK:
He readies to attack and 5' step against if you attack.
You step up, ready for him to move (not 'move' as in move action, but as in move at all), you can even add "twitch and I kill you!"
He doesn't do anything, he's waiting for your attack.
His turn rolls back around and...
you're locked.
Yes, he could move and get smacked, but odds are he readies the exact same action. (Why not? It works.)
So Barbarians can't use swords now? Man, every kobold lair in Golarion would spread the news of this far and wide. Soon goblins, then...
Well, everybody.
No, thanks.
JMK
You're assuming that The readied action occurring before the action that triggered it is the specific rule, when it is in fact the more general rule. How else would a caster get damaged in the middle of casting if it wasn't by a readied action (since continuous damage is already covered by a different DC)
OK, so this comes down to a question of what is more or less general or specific--as do so many of these debates.
You see the concentration check saying the DC is for damage while casting as more specific.
I see the ready action/distracting a spellcaster rule saying that the attack triggers before the triggering action as more specific.
The case I would make for mine being more specific is that the ready action rule specifically says that it goes before the triggering action, and then it gives the specific trigger for distracting a spellcaster as "begins casting." There is nothing in there to say that when distracting a spellcaster, the attack is actually resolved as the spell is cast rather than before.
... This whole thing is icky. Roberts' nuke is looking better and better.
The case I would make for mine being more specific is that the ready action rule specifically says that it goes before the triggering action, and then it gives the specific trigger for distracting a spellcaster as "begins casting." There is nothing in there to say that when distracting a spellcaster, the attack is actually resolved as the spell is cast rather than before.
-The attack is RESOLVED first but it occurs DURING the casting of the spell.
let me try a consequentialist approach then.
In order to interupt a spellcaster you need to
1) Hold an action
2) make a successful attack
3) They have to fail their concentration check.
In order to interupt a melee person you need to
1) Hold an action. Thats it. No muss, no fuss, they're helpless before you. Its funny when a kobold does it, but what happens when a wizard does the same thing to negate a charge and his held action is a 5 foot step and disintegrate?
Edit: think about what this will do to your game. Will it make it better, or will it result in frustrated melee players and slower combats where everyone is waiting behind a shield of held actions for the other person to move.
The case I would make for mine being more specific is that the ready action rule specifically says that it goes before the triggering action, and then it gives the specific trigger for distracting a spellcaster as "begins casting." There is nothing in there to say that when distracting a spellcaster, the attack is actually resolved as the spell is cast rather than before.
let me try a consequentialist approach then.
In order to interupt a spellcaster you need to
1) Hold an action
2) make a successful attack
3) They have to fail their concentration check.In order to interupt a melee person you need to
1) Hold an action. Thats it. No muss, no fuss, they're helpless before you. Its funny when a kobold does it, but what happens when a wizard does the same thing to negate a charge and his held action is a 5 foot step and disintegrate?
I just don't really see this as being so overwhelmingly powerful. There is almost always something that the wizard can be doing which is more valuable than lowering himself in the initiative order. For example, throwing the disintigrate out beforehand. And if he really wanted to take advantage of the -2 AC from charging, he could ready to disintrigrate when they charge and are 50' away, avoiding the whole thing.
Also, if a wizard at that point is letting the barbarian get within melee range, then he is doing something wrong.
And yeah, it means that you can negate 1 melee person without muss or fuss. But 1. That is it. And the opportunity cost for this is huge. And it still leaves you 5' away from them, which is not too good if your long term goal is to get away (as in the evil halfling fleeing before the paladin).
He readies to attack and 5' step against if you attack.
You step up, ready for him to move (not 'move' as in move action, but as in move at all), you can even add "twitch and I kill you!"
He doesn't do anything, he's waiting for your attack.
His turn rolls back around and...
you're locked.
Aaaaand you're stuck like that. Behold the fast pace action of D&D combat where... a 20th level barbarian and a kobold stare each other down from 5 feet away, while the bard strums a tune in the corner.
Combat is supposed to be COMBAT. Run around, jump swing climb crawl and FIGHT dammit. Run up to the kobold grab him by the tail and beat the other kobolds over the head with him. Don't stand there staring at each other because there's a POSSIBLE loophole in the initiative rules.
just don't really see this as being so overwhelmingly powerful. There is almost always something that the wizard can be doing which is more valuable than lowering himself in the initiative order.
He's not dropping himself in the order. Thats what makes the tactic work under your interpretation.
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.
So you keep in front of the charging barbarian, no matter how many times you do it.
I don't know how POWERFUL it is but i know that its horribly annoying and grossly unfair to melee types who can't do anything about it. Chances are pretty good the casters will get spells through via concentration checks.
He readies to attack and 5' step against if you attack.
You step up, ready for him to move (not 'move' as in move action, but as in move at all), you can even add "twitch and I kill you!"
He doesn't do anything, he's waiting for your attack.
His turn rolls back around and...
you're locked.Aaaaand you're stuck like that. Behold the fast pace action of D&D combat where... a 20th level barbarian and a kobold stare each other down from 5 feet away, while the bard strums a tune in the corner.
Combat is supposed to be COMBAT. Run around, jump swing climb crawl and FIGHT dammit. Run up to the kobold grab him by the tail and beat the other kobolds over the head with him. Don't stand there staring at each other because there's a POSSIBLE loophole in the initiative rules.
Of course, once they are locked, the barbarian can just take a full-attack action. On the first attack, the kobold stabs and steps back. Since you can 5-foot step during a full-attack, the barbarian does so, and he then proceeds to pound the kobold into a pulp. Because the kobold thought he had a clever trick figured out which would pin the barbarian to a spot non-moving forever.
just don't really see this as being so overwhelmingly powerful. There is almost always something that the wizard can be doing which is more valuable than lowering himself in the initiative order.
He's not dropping himself in the order. Thats what makes the tactic work under your interpretation.
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.
So you keep in front of the charging barbarian, no matter how many times you do it.
I don't know how POWERFUL it is but i know that its horribly annoying and grossly unfair to melee types who can't do anything about it. Chances are pretty good the casters will get spells through via concentration checks.
You are dropping yourself in the order, though, assuming more than 2 people are in the combat. You act immediately before the triggering character, but everyone between when you readied and when the trigger went now go before you.
And it "shuts down" one melee guy for one round. Assuming he goes after you. If he goes after someone else, then you have wasted your entire turn. And if you are fighting (le gasp!) 2 melee guys, and 5-foot step back from the first, you are still wide open to the second.
And the melee guys can do something about it, as I keep saying. They just need to vary their tactics beyond "run at them and attack."
Of course, once they are locked, the barbarian can just take a full-attack action. On the first attack, the kobold stabs and steps back. Since you can 5-foot step during a full-attack, the barbarian does so, and he then proceeds to pound the kobold into a pulp. Because the kobold thought he had a clever trick figured out which would pin the barbarian to a spot non-moving forever.
Its a kobold vs a 20th level character. The tactic 1) took away the barbarians first round move/attack action and charge,2) took away a second round of face staring 3) Took away his highest BAB attack on round 3, 3) made him use his 2nd highes bab to kill the kobold, and then STUCK the barbarian in place because he's commited to a full attack action and took a 5 foot step. When conan takes THREE rounds to kill a kobold something has gone horribly wrong.
There's an incredibly easy fix. Actions you do not use are not used yet. Spells that are interrupted were used. It fits raw, its easy to use, it has minimal paradox potential, encourages combat, doesn't exacerbate caster/martial disparity, but unfortunately doesn't have any neigh immortal kobolds. If you want to outmaneuver the charging lancer pick up crane style.
Of course, once they are locked, the barbarian can just take a full-attack action. On the first attack, the kobold stabs and steps back. Since you can 5-foot step during a full-attack, the barbarian does so, and he then proceeds to pound the kobold into a pulp. Because the kobold thought he had a clever trick figured out which would pin the barbarian to a spot non-moving forever.Its a kobold vs a 20th level character. The tactic 1) took away the barbarians first round move/attack action and charge,2) took away a second round of face staring 3) Took away his highest BAB attack on round 3, 3) made him use his 2nd highes bab to kill the kobold, and then STUCK the barbarian in place because he's commited to a full attack action and took a 5 foot step. When conan takes THREE rounds to kill a kobold something has gone horribly wrong.
There's an incredibly easy fix. Actions you do not use are not used yet. Spells that are interrupted were used. It fits raw, its easy to use, it has minimal paradox potential, encourages combat, doesn't exacerbate caster/martial disparity, but unfortunately doesn't have any neigh immortal kobolds. If you want to outmaneuver the charging lancer pick up crane style.
But I look at that and see it as nothing but paradox potential
Kobold readies to 5-foot step back if barbarian attacks.
Barbarian attacks, so kobold 5-foot steps back, which means barbarian never attacked and does something else...
so what triggered the kobold's 5-foot step?
so what triggered the kobold's 5-foot step?
The barbarian raising the axe over his head to swing, the kobold eeeps, puts a puddle on the floor, steps away, the barbarian follows and hacks off his head. This is how its supposed to go.
I love the idea of the kobold doing such a trick, and find it quite amusing, and perfectly plausible. He is betting that he can trick the stupid barbarian to follow a very specific course of action in order to buy his buddies time. The trick works as long as he has room and the barbarian complies with the kobold's wishes. A defensive oriented PC trying to pull a particularly nasty foe from it's support could do the same thing, and succeed as long as he has room, and the foe plays along.
Could it become a very boring tactic very quickly, possibly, if that is the only thing going on on the battlefield, but chances are, the battlefield will be fluid enough, and the foe intelligent enough, that it will work at best for 2 rounds before something interferes, and if it goes farther than that, than chances are it's an act of pure desparation, and thus, probably already in the "probably shouldn't develop in that manner very often" category. It's a neat trick, but not one that a wise person would employ on a regular basis.
ould it become a very boring tactic very quickly, possibly, if that is the only thing going on on the battlefield, but chances are, the battlefield will be fluid enough, and the foe intelligent enough, that it will work at best for 2 rounds before something interferes
You are, at best, making a player automatically miss for two rounds, which can be 10 minutes where they're sitting at the table, getting frustrated because they're not allowed to even pick up a die to try to hit anything. I don't consider that interpretation to be making the game more fun or realistic. Remember that the fighter doesn't just swing the sword once even if they have one attack: they set up, they feint, they gather momentum. A high level fighter making 4 attacks isn't 4 times faster than a 1st level fighter they're 4 times as efficient.
Now thats with ONE kobold. What happens if you have a phalanx of orcs with spears. They hold actions to whack them as soon as you swing. So what happens is the adventurer moves to them, they get the whack of opportunity, the adventurer moves in to swing... the orcs 5 foot step back and whack them again with out even the POSSIBILITY of being hit. This makes combat far too safe for people with held actions. Being hit or missed is supposed to be a matter of the attack roll, not initiative.
ould it become a very boring tactic very quickly, possibly, if that is the only thing going on on the battlefield, but chances are, the battlefield will be fluid enough, and the foe intelligent enough, that it will work at best for 2 rounds before something interferes
You are, at best, making a player automatically miss for two rounds, which can be 10 minutes where they're sitting at the table, getting frustrated because they're not allowed to even pick up a die to try to hit anything. I don't consider that interpretation to be making the game more fun or realistic. Remember that the fighter doesn't just swing the sword once even if they have one attack: they set up, they feint, they gather momentum. A high level fighter making 4 attacks isn't 4 times faster than a 1st level fighter they're 4 times as efficient.
Now thats with ONE kobold. What happens if you have a phalanx of orcs with spears. They hold actions to whack them as soon as you swing. So what happens is the adventurer moves to them, they get the whack of opportunity, the adventurer moves in to swing... the orcs 5 foot step back and whack them again with out even the POSSIBILITY of being hit. This makes combat far too safe for people with held actions. Being hit or missed is supposed to be a matter of the attack roll, not initiative.
Take Step Up, pick up a reach weapon, pick up a bow, use their tactic in conjunction with other party resources to corner them. There are plenty of ways around it if it should come up on a regular basis. If it just comes up every now and then, the fighter learns to deal with it if it bothers him that much, and/or lets the rest of the party handle that particular fight while he serves as bait. It's only as problematic as the charging character makes it. As for it being safe for people with held actions, it's only safe as long as the enemy conforms to the expected action. Otherwise, the would be tricksters are the ones who just wasted a full round.
|
|
Aaaaand you're stuck like that. Behold the fast pace action of D&D combat where... a 20th level barbarian and a kobold stare each other down from 5 feet away, while the bard strums a tune in the corner.
"CAAAaaaannn you feeeeel the love tonight?"
Seriously though - I think I got it! It's possible that some of us are confusing the wording w/ AoO w/ that of readied action.
Attack of Opportunity specifically has verbiage that indicates the AoO takes place PRIOR to the act that triggered it, thus someone trying to stand up gets an attack of opportunity while still on the ground.
I think that readied action is in fact resolved/adjudicated prior to the resolution of the triggering occasion; but actually happening during; as Norse was saying.
HOWEVER - in BOTH instances - if a caster is hit, he has to make a concentration check or risk losing spell.
So there's potential evidence that in both cases if he's hit prior or during he may lose the spell.
That all being said - dude Norse - I wonder if perhaps you take things a bit too seriously at your games, when I read you talk about players getting all frustrated and furious over such a small thing.
My players would find it quite comical and they'd rib that barbarian's player for years afterwards about it. I'm certainly not saying "my players are better than your players" but I am sitting here asking myself if something so small is so damnably irritating, if perhaps the point of the 'having fun' is being overlooked. Most of the guys I know would laugh their butts off if this were happening......
But then again when we play we make sure we're having fun - unfortunately it's usually at someone elses expense. :-) LOL
Robert
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Immortal Kobold (tm) locks up the Barbarian (Yes, Conan, who just lost all his allies. Again.) Really? Conan? He should Great Cleave through 30+/minute (until morale broke), not chase one in circles. He should snort in derision as he crushes its head in his hand and keeps his sword pointed toward where a real threat might come from.
All of you referring to teammates, other weapons, other resources are forgetting the very important point:
A Fighter with a sword should be able to move 5' and roll his attack against somebody who didn't take the chance to flee, at any level, with or without a second attack.
That's a staple, a ground rule for PnP RPGs and fantasy stories alike.
There's an incredibly easy fix. Actions you do not use are not used yet. Spells that are interrupted were used. It fits raw, its easy to use, it has minimal paradox potential, encourages combat, doesn't exacerbate caster/martial disparity, but unfortunately doesn't have any neigh immortal kobolds. If you want to outmaneuver the charging lancer pick up crane style.
I like this 'fix' as it's the way the game is played, RAI, by the majority of GMs. No IK's, no frustration.
(Really, anybody inspired to put some IKs in their game, better be ready for a Cheetoh barrage, if not worse.)Go team BNW!
Well, except I still disagree with you, BNW, with the charge scenario, but only because that's one action (not two) with specific rules about when it's illegal or not, and the readied person can ready for the latter part of that singular action, interrupting it.
And because there are so many real world/fantasy fiction examples that support the doability.
BTW, The lancer can just wheel around next round and smite. Easy to imagine six seconds used on first charge.
In the end, I only want clarification for organized play's sake (I'm happy with my RAI and yours as well) more than to 'win' this somewhat locked argument.
Going to my corner to lurk...
JMK