What are the feats and evolutions of the synthesist mount? I am thinking that like all riders the mount is the weak point. The mount here is essentially a summoned outsider which opens some nice options.
Weak point is relative. Synthesists are damn tough.
This next question is for Trinam:
You mentioned before that AM BARBARIAN uses every cheesy RAW bending trick imaginable as an exercise in going beyond the impossible. If you were to remove these tricks, for instance to make a Barbarian for a reasonable game, how much of AM's casty killing strategy is still workable?
This next question is for Trinam:
You mentioned before that AM BARBARIAN uses every cheesy RAW bending trick imaginable as an exercise in going beyond the impossible. If you were to remove these tricks, for instance to make a Barbarian for a reasonable game, how much of AM's casty killing strategy is still workable?
You would need to focus more on stealth and being incredibly unexpected, but the core theory of 'Bat + Lance + Barbarian = :awesome:' holds up remarkably well in 95% of circumstances, particularly since if you're trying to make him for a reasonable game, you also have a reasonable party which can take care of some spellcasting costs. (If you front the money for the permanency, I have never seen a caster not willing to help by preparing it. The same goes for other permanent buffs that require no actual effort.)
This next question is for Trinam:
You mentioned before that AM BARBARIAN uses every cheesy RAW bending trick imaginable as an exercise in going beyond the impossible. If you were to remove these tricks, for instance to make a Barbarian for a reasonable game, how much of AM's casty killing strategy is still workable?
Such a change to the game would have to go both ways, you can't just strip all the power out of non-casty classes/builds, and keep all the mojo the casty classes have. That's a quick way to end up with 3.x all over again, no one wants that except the people who are blinded by nostalgia goggles, and those people can simply go back to playing 3.5. Like most of them already have.
Such a change to the game would have to go both ways, you can't just strip all the power out of non-casty classes/builds, and keep all the mojo the casty classes have. That's a quick way to end up with 3.x all over again, no one wants that except the people who are blinded by nostalgia goggles, and those people can simply go back to playing 3.5. Like most of them already have.This next question is for Trinam:
You mentioned before that AM BARBARIAN uses every cheesy RAW bending trick imaginable as an exercise in going beyond the impossible. If you were to remove these tricks, for instance to make a Barbarian for a reasonable game, how much of AM's casty killing strategy is still workable?
I'm... not sure what you're trying to say here, but I don't advocate actually using AM in a really-for-realz campaign. Somewhere around 'SUMMONER MOUNT' I kind of hit the sort of high-end optimization that would have even made ol' CoDzilla cry.
...man where'd he ever get to anyways?
Such a change to the game would have to go both ways, you can't just strip all the power out of non-casty classes/builds, and keep all the mojo the casty classes have. That's a quick way to end up with 3.x all over again, no one wants that except the people who are blinded by nostalgia goggles, and those people can simply go back to playing 3.5. Like most of them already have.I'm... not sure what you're trying to say here, but I don't advocate actually using AM in a really-for-realz campaign. Somewhere around 'SUMMONER MOUNT' I kind of hit the sort of high-end optimization that would have even made ol' CoDzilla cry.
...man where'd he ever get to anyways?
I'm saying that, as a game developer, one shouldn't punish a player for playing a type of class, which is basically what Brambleman was suggesting, even as a hypothetical scenario, it should be considered abhorrent.... or at least as abhorrent as one can manage with an RPG..... barring special cases of course.
CoDzilla? The poster, probably in a corner crying at AM's builds. The concept, hopefully dead, in a ditch somewhere, partially eaten, and partially buried by a rabid mackerel.
Does the Mage-killer Barb get mention in the guide?
BTW, really looking foreward to that. Never got the hang of barbarians myself.
Oh, and I thought CoDzilla got lost in the switch to Pathfinder. Think he hangs out in old 3.5 op threads.
Oh. Well. Heck, if I was going to play AM in a campaign I'd tone him back significantly myself.
Then again, that's assuming Wizards and other such castys avoid the same level of hyper-optimization. If it is a minmax game? You bet your sweet butt all bets are off.
The thing is, in a 'reasonable game,' neither wizards nor BARBARIAN are going to be cranking the volume up anywhere near this high.
I'm saying that, as a game developer, one shouldn't punish a player for playing a type of class, which is basically what Brambleman was suggesting, even as a hypothetical scenario, it should be considered abhorrent.... or at least as abhorrent as one can manage with an RPG..... barring special cases of course.
I protest Sirrah! I never suggested anything of the kind. Trinam made it very clear that he would never allow an all caps build at his table for the very reason that they are designed to break the game into tiny pieces.
This is not a function of being a Barbarian or any other class.Edit: better explained by Trinam in the post above.
Does the Mage-killer Barb get mention in the guide?
BTW, really looking foreward to that. Never got the hang of barbarians myself.Oh, and I thought CoDzilla got lost in the switch to Pathfinder. Think he hangs out in old 3.5 op threads.
I will be pointing out what abilities are particularly good at killing castys, but the main 'types' of Barbarians I'm focusing on is mounted and CAGM.
Naturally, anything anticasty and good for it will be marked as such, (and my bias may make them green or blue) but I leave the builds to the person building.
And it's a darn shame. I kind of wanted to see his brand of illogic versus the ALLCAPS ILLOGICAL MIGHT of AM.
Wow, this thread has just become a giant case of "Yuh-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!" "Nuh-uh"
I've never seen more cases of people just straight up disregarding what has already been shown as not working either. On both sides honestly.
You can't interrupt a charge action with a readied action, you do it just before the action or not at all.
Invisibility purge, you charge forward, activate it, and the caster already ported away. Perfectly fine for if they ambush you but with an intelligent one would have cancelled that.
Your negative level idea is hilarious though Trinam, so much for clones. (edit: though we both know casters will now modify too account for it)
I haven't addressed everything here, just the ones that bothered me the most.
(Some-one already said something about the whole "well i'll totally just scry you and NO YOU WONT WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS.)
Also, let me give a example of the readied action problem.
Example 1, you ready some form of a wall. Am charges, so you activate your wall forcing AM to stop when he impacts. This is fine.
Example 2, you ready a uber colour spray of lol. Am charges, you cast your colour spray, AM is still out of range, so it does nothing, he then mutilates you. You CANNOT go "well i'll wait" Readying specifically states you have to do it just before the action you wish to interrupt, not in the middle, and the movement/attack is all one Charge action.
Wow, this thread has just become a giant case of "Yuh-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!" "Nuh-uh"
I've never seen more cases of people just straight up disregarding what has already been shown as not working either. On both sides honestly.
You can't interrupt a charge action with a readied action, you do it just before the action or not at all.
Invisibility purge, you charge forward, activate it, and the caster already ported away. Perfectly fine for if they ambush you but with an intelligent one would have cancelled that.
Your negative level idea is hilarious though Trinam, so much for clones.
I haven't addressed everything here, just the ones that bothered me the most.
(Some-one already said something about the whole "well i'll totally just scry you and NO YOU WONT WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS.)
Nuh-uh!
(Unless I was a Yuh-huh. In which case I apologize for the confusion, and redact my statement)
Does the Mage-killer Barb get mention in the guide?
BTW, really looking foreward to that. Never got the hang of barbarians myself.Oh, and I thought CoDzilla got lost in the switch to Pathfinder. Think he hangs out in old 3.5 op threads.
I will be pointing out what abilities are particularly good at killing castys, but the main 'types' of Barbarians I'm focusing on is mounted and CAGM.
Naturally, anything anticasty and good for it will be marked as such, (and my bias may make them green or blue) but I leave the builds to the person building.
And it's a darn shame. I kind of wanted to see his brand of illogic versus the ALLCAPS ILLOGICAL MIGHT of AM.
What one person considers illogic, other people, potentially non-crazy ones, consider reality. Sure it doesn't make a lick of sense, but when has reality conformed to our meager concept of "sense"? Most people consider some things science fiction, however they are often science fact.
Sorry to go on a tangent.
I disagree, if only because it risks devolving into an outright argument, instead of maintaining a civil discussion tone.
Wow, this thread has just become a giant case of "Yuh-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!" "Nuh-uh"
I've never seen more cases of people just straight up disregarding what has already been shown as not working either. On both sides honestly.
You can't interrupt a charge action with a readied action, you do it just before the action or not at all.
Invisibility purge, you charge forward, activate it, and the caster already ported away. Perfectly fine for if they ambush you but with an intelligent one would have cancelled that.
Your negative level idea is hilarious though Trinam, so much for clones.
I haven't addressed everything here, just the ones that bothered me the most.
(Some-one already said something about the whole "well i'll totally just scry you and NO YOU WONT WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS.)
Nuh-uh!
(Unless I was a Yuh-huh. In which case I apologize for the confusion, and redact my statement)
As far as I can tell everyone is both a Yuh-huh while simultaneously being a Nuh-uh, thus the correct answer would have been "Nuh-Yuh" or "Yuh-Nuh"
Huh-wha?
Are we there yet ?
Huh-wha?I think he's placed you in a quantum state of "yuh-huh" and "nuh-uh".... or something to that effect. I suspect he is inebriated.
Are we there yet ?
Ask again and I'm pulling this car over so fast, we will be back in the Chainmail system.
Huh-wha?I think he's placed you in a quantum state of "yuh-huh" and "nuh-uh".... or something to that effect. I suspect he is inebriated.Are we there yet ?Ask again and I'm pulling this car over so fast, we will be back in the Chainmail system.
Or back to when 'elf' was a class and the only full caster was 'magic user'.
Come on, guys. This thread is loosing momentum, and we are a long way from 10k posts. Let's get the ball rolling again!
So far we've established the following:
- Casters are able to hide from AM or flee if the win initiative, or they might just be killed and live on in a clone. Yay, casty win by running away scared.
- AM is able to RAGELANCEPOUNCE a casty, IF he get to set the parameters of the encounter (and the wizard isn't ready for defense). Having no means to discern who and where his enemies are this becomes a difficulty. Apart from this, he is flying around really fast making it impossible for a wizard to locate him precisely. Yay, AM win by running away from any possible threat.
So far the battlefield is something like: Two characters leave, no one enters.
Come on, guys. This thread is loosing momentum, and we are a long way from 10k posts. Let's get the ball rolling again!
So far we've established the following:
- Casters are able to hide from AM or flee if the win initiative, or they might just be killed and live on in a clone. Yay, casty win by running away scared.
- AM is able to RAGELANCEPOUNCE a casty, IF he get to set the parameters of the encounter (and the wizard isn't ready for defense). Having no means to discern who and where his enemies are this becomes a difficulty. Apart from this, he is flying around really fast making it impossible for a wizard to locate him precisely. Yay, AM win by running away from any possible threat.So far the battlefield is something like: Two characters leave, no one enters.
Yes. Right now we are basically screwing around and nobody can find each other and when they can, generally RAGELANCEPOUNCE happens.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Have you ever considered going to work for infomercials? Every time you talk I want to buy more things!AM BARBARIAN's most powerful weapon is the element of surprise, which is free :D.
AM BARBARIAN ENDORSE CHUCK NORRIS DESTRUCITY OF PERIODIC TABLE - BOTH ONLY RECOGNIZE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
BARBARIAN RECOGNIZE NOTHER ELEMENT. AM WHOLE NEW ELEMENT! AM ELEMENT OF SMASH.
SYMBOL AM SM.
AM HAVING ATOMIC NUMBER EQUAL TO HPS OF CURRENT RAGELANCEPOUNCE TARGET. AM VERY VOLATILE. BARBARIAN RECCOMEND NEVER TRY TO SPLIT ATOM OF SMASH. AM LEVEL ENTIRE CITY. BARBARIAN KNOWS BECAUSE BARBARIAN HAS SUNDERED ATOM.
...WHAT AM CASTY'S ABILITY TO SURVIVE NUCLEAR DETONATION AT GROUND 0? BARBARIAN HAVE EVASION SO AM NO PROBLEM FOR BARBARIAN.
Huh-wha?I think he's placed you in a quantum state of "yuh-huh" and "nuh-uh".... or something to that effect. I suspect he is inebriated.Are we there yet ?Ask again and I'm pulling this car over so fast, we will be back in the Chainmail system.
This right here is your mistake. I have Heritage (Scottish), as such I am always either roaring drunk or hungover, "suspect" has nothing to do with it.
on the subject of broken. How does AM fare against Terrible Remorse?
edit: Just found the Official word on it. So not as broken, but still Save and be paralyzed.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Wow, this thread has just become a giant case of "Yuh-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!" "Nuh-uh"
I've never seen more cases of people just straight up disregarding what has already been shown as not working either. On both sides honestly.
You can't interrupt a charge action with a readied action, you do it just before the action or not at all.
I forgot to include this in a previous post, but in this case I have to side with the anti-AM forces. You absolutely CAN interrupt the middle of someone else's action with a readied action. You quoted one sentence of the rules on p. 203 of the Core Rulebook.
"The action occurs just before the action that triggers it."
But you forgot the sentences that come RIGHT AFTER 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."
The triggering creature's action is not a discrete, uninterruptable unit; a readied action can be spliced into the middle of it. Why do the rules say the readied action takes place before the triggering action? To make it clear that if your readied action trigger is "if someone attacks me," then you get to resolve your action before them, and if you kill or incapacitate the target, then he doesn't get to go at all (or suffers whatever negative effects of your action or attack when he does get to go). Hence, "Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action."
If you want a RAW example of this principle demonstrated in the rules, look at the "brace" weapon special ability.
By rule, "If you use a readied action to set a brace weapon against a charge, you deal double damage on a successful hit against a charging character (see Chapter 8)."
If your interpretation were correct, then the brace rule would be nonsensical because it could never apply. In order to charge, you must move at least 10 feet, but you could be anywhere with a clear line of movement and sight within double your (or your mount's) speed. At the point when they start charging, they are almost certainly out of your reach; therefore you couldn't attack them at all by readying a brace weapon, because by your interpretation the readied action would have to be able to reach them BEFORE they charged you, which is virtually impossible.
Example: Doug readies his longspear with the brace property to attack Bob if he charges. Bob gets ready to charge Doug from 30 feet away. Bob charges. Doug thinks he can attack Bob as soon as he gets within reach with his charge. According to your interpretation, Doug can't attack Bob at all, because he'd have to be able to attack Bob from 30 feet away, before he STARTED his charge, which is impossible unless Doug is Gargantuan (or Huge with a reach weapon).
That's silly, counter-historical, and counter to the RAW. It is literally lifting one sentence out of context in such a way that it reverses the meaning of the paragraph in which it occurs. The readying rule absolutely and explicitly states you CAN interrupt other people in the middle of their actions, and that they continue the rest of their actions after your interruption.
Invisibility purge, you charge forward, activate it, and the caster already ported away. Perfectly fine for if they ambush you but with an intelligent one would have cancelled that.
Sorry, I didn't follow through with explaining the implications of the at-will Invisibility Purge device. The idea of it being at will isn't that you activate it when you think you need it; it's that you activate it ALL THE TIME. You just keep reactivating it every 13 minutes.
It's the same thing the presumptive casters are doing activating their ring of invisibility every 3 minutes. PF invis isn't "it lasts until you attack." It's 1 minute per level *OR* until you attack. Those rings of invisibility, caster level *3*, need to be reactivated every 3 minutes.
So would this. The only reason to do it that way instead of just making it constant is to save on the price to make it. :)
on the subject of broken. How does AM fare against Terrible Remorse?
edit: Just found the Official word on it. So not as broken, but still Save and be paralyzed.
AM FAIRING PRETTY WELL. CASTING SUCH THING ON BARBARIAN AM OPEN INVITATION FOR CASTY TO FEEL REALLY BAD ABOUT SELF FOR BEING SILLY ENOUGH TO CAST TARGETED SPELL ON BARBARIAN.
EVEN IF CASTY AM MAKING SAVE.
I think I have figured out how to beat AM, but only on Golarion.
Pass the Test of the Starstone before AM does.
Job done!
Smasher is an (Ex), Starstone does weird things to magic, and AM is wielding what is effectively an adamantine drill.
He will get to the center first.
Actually, that probably explains a lot. What ARE the stats on a deity?
Actually, that probably explains a lot. What ARE the stats on a deity?
Not sure, but they are significantly lower than those of the level 20 Nature Oracle...
Not sure, but they are significantly lower than those of the level 20 Nature Oracle...
Actually, that probably explains a lot. What ARE the stats on a deity?
Obviously. Weren't you paying attention upthread? We established oracles have over 1600 HP and all their spells have a save DC of 60+.
Obviously. Weren't you paying attention upthread? We established oracles have over 1600 HP and all their spells have a save DC of 60+.Not sure, but they are significantly lower than those of the level 20 Nature Oracle...
Actually, that probably explains a lot. What ARE the stats on a deity?
I am pretty sure my example showed hp above 26000 and a save DC around 160, but yes...
Wow, this thread has just become a giant case of "Yuh-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!" "Nuh-uh"
I've never seen more cases of people just straight up disregarding what has already been shown as not working either. On both sides honestly.
You can't interrupt a charge action with a readied action, you do it just before the action or not at all.
I forgot to include this in a previous post, but in this case I have to side with the anti-AM forces. You absolutely CAN interrupt the middle of someone else's action with a readied action. You quoted one sentence of the rules on p. 203 of the Core Rulebook.
"The action occurs just before the action that triggers it."
But you forgot the sentences that come RIGHT AFTER 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."
The triggering creature's action is not a discrete, uninterruptable unit; a readied action can be spliced into the middle of it. Why do the rules say the readied action takes place before the triggering action? To make it clear that if your readied action trigger is "if someone attacks me," then you get to resolve your action before them, and if you kill or incapacitate the target, then he doesn't get to go at all (or suffers whatever negative effects of your action or attack when he does get to go). Hence, "Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action."
If you want a RAW example of this principle demonstrated in the rules, look at the "brace" weapon special ability.
By rule, "If you use a readied action to set a brace weapon against a charge, you deal double damage on a successful hit against a charging character (see Chapter 8)."
If your interpretation were correct, then the brace rule would be nonsensical because it could never apply. In order to charge, you must...
Yes if the character takes a move action, then a attack action you totally can.
However the charge action is a single complete action which happens to involve moving and attacking. In the charge action section it specifically states this.
As for the brace action? You are reading the brace against a charge. I'm not seeing a problem here. The brace is readied before the charge allowing you to make a double damage attack as per the brace quality.
Specific rules are often the exception, that's why they spell out exactly why they are different.
Yes if the character takes a move action, then a attack action you totally can.
However the charge action is a single complete action which happens to involve moving and attacking. In the charge action section it specifically states this.
As for the brace action? You are reading the brace against a charge. I'm not seeing a problem here. The brace is readied before the charge allowing you to make a double damage attack as per the brace quality.
Specific rules are often the exception, that's why they spell out exactly why they are different.
You are ignoring the part about interrupting the action.
It does not matter that the charge is a single action. Your readied action takes place during the opponents charge action, since the triggering condition isn't met until he moves closer.
Now I understand this might have actually been a mistake.
Nonetheless a charge action is a single action with a move and a attack. Neither of those are labelled as actions. Readied can only be done before the triggering action. The being able to interrupt says to me that if some-thing decided to say, cast 2 spells, you CAN ready against a specific one rather than just have to attack as soon as he does something.
No matter how you want to spin it the charge action says "Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action." This supports it is all one action.
And readied says "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. 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."
Further note how it says "activities" not actions.
Argue as you want, the RAW is clear.
EDIT:- Say what you will, I have clarified that charging is DEFIANTLY all one action, readied actions HAVE to be taken before the action, and it doesn't say ANYWHERE you can interrupt some-ones ACTIONS. just there activities. In other words if they take a move, a attack and a swift, you can have your readied go off at any point in between those, if it fills your conditions.
Now I understand this might have actually been a mistake.
Nonetheless a charge action is a single action with a move and a attack. Neither of those are labelled as actions. Readied can only be done before the triggering action. The being able to interrupt says to me that if some-thing decided to say, cast 2 spells, you CAN ready against a specific one rather than just have to attack as soon as he does something.
No matter how you want to spin it the charge action says "Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action." This supports it is all one action.
And readied says "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. 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."Further note how it says "activities" not actions.
Argue as you want, the RAW is clear.
You are grossly misinterpreting this.
The rules doesn't state that your readied action need to be in response to another creature 'action' in the game mechanical term.
You need to ready against a certain triggering condition. Nowhere in the rules you stated does it clam that the condition in question need to be an action.
Furthermore the interpretation you suggest makes readied actions impossible, or at least nonsensical.
Consider this:
Player: I ready an action to shoot an arrow of the monster, when I can see him.
GM: Take your shot.
Player: Has the monster appeared?
GM: No, but he will during his move action, so you need to take your action before he moves anywhere.
Now I understand this might have actually been a mistake.
Nonetheless a charge action is a single action with a move and a attack. Neither of those are labelled as actions. Readied can only be done before the triggering action. The being able to interrupt says to me that if some-thing decided to say, cast 2 spells, you CAN ready against a specific one rather than just have to attack as soon as he does something.
No matter how you want to spin it the charge action says "Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action." This supports it is all one action.
And readied says "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. 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."Further note how it says "activities" not actions.
Argue as you want, the RAW is clear.
You are grossly misinterpreting this.
The rules doesn't state that your readied action need to be in response to another creature 'action' in the game mechanical term.
You need to ready against a certain triggering condition. Nowhere in the rules you stated does it clam that the condition in question need to be an action.
Furthermore the interpretation you suggest makes readied actions impossible, or at least nonsensical.
Consider this:
Player: I ready...
In that case the triggering action would be when he takes his standard action.
Frankly I admit it is wrongly worded, and would never enforce this in a real game.
But in a thread that has been taking raw to the extreme, we are going by the raw, and if you can argue anything I said is wrong via the RAW rather than just "that's silly" then I'll be happy to hear it.
In that case the triggering action would be when he takes his standard action.
Frankly I admit it is wrongly worded, and would never enforce this in a real game.
But in a thread that has been taking raw to the extreme, we are going by the raw, and if you can argue anything I said is wrong via the RAW rather than just "that's silly" then I'll be happy to hear it.
I am arguing that you interpretation is RAW.
The rules state that you ready against a certain condition. So by RAW it isn't limited to actions.
You put emphasis on the sentence that states: 'the action takes place before the action that triggered it'.
I put more emphasis on the following sentence: 'If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character'.
So it is not a matter of RAW vs. common sense. It is matter of interpretation vs. interpretation.
But there is no doubt that a rewrite could clear it all up.
I am arguing that you interpretation is RAW.
The rules state that you ready against a certain condition. So by RAW it isn't limited to actions.
You put emphasis on the sentence that states: 'the action takes place before the action that triggered it'.
I put more emphasis on the following sentence: 'If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character'.
So it is not a matter of RAW vs. common sense. It is matter of interpretation vs. interpretation.
But there is no doubt that a rewrite could clear it all up.
My interpretation is following all of the rules, yours is following only parts.
Lets try your example. The creature moves, before his move action he cannot be seen so it does not trigger the readied action. after the move action he takes his standard action. He now fills the conditions of "being seen", thus triggering your readied action. You shoot him.
With your interpretation you are completely disregarding the part of the rule that tells you WHEN your action is used, which is just before the action that triggers it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Now I understand this might have actually been a mistake.
Nonetheless a charge action is a single action with a move and a attack. Neither of those are labelled as actions. Readied can only be done before the triggering action. The being able to interrupt says to me that if some-thing decided to say, cast 2 spells, you CAN ready against a specific one rather than just have to attack as soon as he does something.
You can't ready an action "as soon as he does something." You have to define a trigger. "Does something" isn't defined; you have to say WHAT the something is that will trigger your readied action.
Also, interrupting someone has nothing to do with spells. You can interrupt any activity or any part of an activity.
No matter how you want to spin it the charge action says "Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action." This supports it is all one action.
Sure. Nobody debates that a charge is a full-round action. That is abundantly clear.
And readied says "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. 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."
Further note how it says "activities" not actions.
Argue as you want, the RAW is clear.
I would agree that the RAW is clear.
I would disagree with your interpretation of its clarity.
1. In the first place, you are also ignoring the sentences before the one that hangs you up. "specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it."
It does not say "the actions of another creature," it says the "conditions." Readying an action need not be contingent on another CREATURE at all. It could be triggered whenever a door opens, the lights go out, or anything at all.
2. Next, it says: "anytime before your next turn, you may take the readied action in response to that condition." It doesn't state "you may only take it before an action happens" or "you may only take it in between actions by another creature." It says "anytime."
If my condition is "whenever an orc comes within 30 feet," I can take my action the ANYTIME before my next turn that an orc comes within 30 feet. If 3 orcs all come within 30 feet before my next turn, I could take my readied action when the first orc does it, when the second orc does it, or when the third orc does it.
My action doesn't happen after their move action and before their standard action that round. It happens anytime the condition is met until I trigger my action (which then resets my initiative to right before the trigger and my turn is done until next time).
3. Your focus on the distinction between "activities" and "actions" is also interesting, as you seem to be reading the meaning into the text that "activities" are something separate from actions. Actions are mechanically defined activities. Activities is a superordinate category that includes everything a character does; "actions" in the game-mechanical sense are a subset of activities, not the other way around.
Perhaps I should reverse the question and ask you: What precisely, in a game-mechanical sense, would you be interrupting as part of a character's activities that would not be considered a part of that character's actions?
4. To return to the brace example, how exactly would a character with a brace weapon make his attack, using the ready action, against a target that was outside of his reach BEFORE they used the charge action?
You are insisting that the following are true:
a. A readied action must occur before a charge and cannot interrupt it.
b. The brace property allows you to do ready an attack against a charging opponent.
The rules are clear that the following is also true:
c. A Large dragon has a fly speed of 200 feet. Using the charge action, it can move double its speed (400 feet) in a straight, unobstructed line and make an attack.
If (a) is true and (b) is true and (c) is true, then the following (d) must also be true:
d. If I ready an attack with my brace weapon, an ordinary spear which is not a reach weapon, the brace quality enables me to make a melee attack against a dragon that charges me while it is still 400 feet away, prior to the beginning of its action.
Note that the brace property does not modify the ready action in any way, nor create any exceptions to it. It says "If you use a readied action... (as Chapter 8)." It does not say "(as Chapter 8, but your attack occurs when the target comes within reach)." All conditions that apply to readied attacks of all kinds also apply to readied attacks with brace weapons.
5. Let's try a different example.
Bilbo is standing with a guisarme at the ready, having readied an action to trip Gollum if enters his threatened area.
Gollum starts out 20 feet away and walks into Bilbo's threatened area.
Bilbo's readied action is triggered and he succeeds at his trip maneuver.
Where does Gollum fall down? Is it:
a. In the square where he was when Bilbo tripped him.
b. In the square where he was at the beginning of his movement 20 feet away, even though Bilbo can't reach that square with his guisarme when he started moving.
c. It's a trick question. Bilbo can't ready an action to trip him at all because moving is one action and you can't interrupt someone in the middle of their movement.
Thoughts?
My interpretation is following all of the rules, yours is following only parts.
Lets try your example. The creature moves, before his move action he cannot be seen so it does not trigger the readied action. after the move action he takes his standard action. He now fills the conditions of "being seen", thus triggering your readied action. You shoot him.
With your interpretation you are completely disregarding the part of the rule that tells you WHEN your action is used, which is just before the action that triggers it.
In the example, it doesn't make sense.
1) The trigger is 'when I see a monster'. That doesn't mean, 'when I se the monster and he does something else'. Making another action on his part a trigger doesn't follow any of the rules.2) What if the monster in question does take any other actions...? In that case, following your interpretation, the readied action is not triggered, even though the creature is standing in plain sight.
I am not disregarding any of the rules. I just put emphasis on A) Rules state condition, not action, as trigger. And B) the ready action interrupts.
The argument for taking a readied action during another creatures action is also implied in the sentence 'Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action'. Notice that it does say that he takes the rest of his actions, but continues his actions.
I don't disagree that you take your readied action before a triggering action, but that only applies if it is relevant. If my trigger is 'I do X, if he attacks me', then it is relevant, as it makes me able to act before his attack. If my trigger is 'When he deals damage to me with his insane lance', I don't get to back in time. This examplifies the difference in an action condition and a non-action condition.
If you want to claim RAW on your position, you need to show that a readied action only can occur as response to a specific action, in game mechanical terms, made by another character.
My thoughts are simple, it is badly worded.
All of your points are fine points, and I see where you are coming from, nevertheless it does quite simply state your action comes just before the triggering action.
From how I've seen it it works like this, You ready a action, and set your conditions. For example, "when the target gets within 30 feet".
You then proceed to move through the turn, and when the conditions are filled, the target can take his action JUST BEFORE the action that triggers it. IF that means you can't actually do the action then obviously the conditions weren't met, and you move on.
For the case of "when the target gets in 30 feet" If his move is to move within 30 feet, it triggers and you shoot even though they haven't moved yet. If they couldn't be seen before that, then the next action they take is fulfilling the conditions and you get your action.
Once again yes this renders brace as technically useless. This is not a problem with my interpretation of the readied action rules, it is a problem with the wording of charge. Obviously the move and attack are meant to count as separate actions, however they not in the wording given.
Activities literally means "busy or vigorous actions or movements". In other words you CAN interrupt his actions or movements, provided you follow all the rules in readied action, such as taking your action just before the triggering action.
Once again, I'm aware this is likely not going with the RAI and as such i'd never enforce it in a actual game. But RAW that is exactly what it says.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
In that case the triggering action would be when he takes his standard action.
You are misquoting RAW. RAW does not ask for a triggering ACTION. It asks for a triggering CONDITIONS.
"You specify the action YOU will take, and the conditions under which you will take it."
You've cited it yourself. It's been cited to you. The person readying is the one who decides what condition will trigger their readied action.
Frankly I admit it is wrongly worded, and would never enforce this in a real game. But in a thread that has been taking raw to the extreme, we are going by the raw, and if you can argue anything I said is wrong via the RAW rather than just "that's silly" then I'll be happy to hear it.
RAW has been cited to you repeatedly.
The examples are showing the implication of your interpretation. Frankly, the other guy's example was more succinct than mine.
If you are correct, that the readied action must happen before the full, indivisible, uninterruptible action that the other guy is doing (despite RAW saying "If the triggered action is PART of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character"), then you must allow his archer example. These aren't examples to prove the point by saying "It's silly!" They're examples that demonstrate the inherent silliness of your position in order to supplement the explicit RAW contradiction of your position by SHOWING as well as telling.
If you accept your position to be true, you must also accept that this silly situation is what your interpretation would mean. Might that, as an illustration of the simple explication of the RAW text itself, not incline you to rethink your interpretation? Maybe, maybe not. Hey, if it works for you bro, have fun! That is what the game is all about. This is what I was thinking, tongue planted firmly in cheek:
Me: I ready to shoot the monster when it comes around the corner
Monster: I'm coming around the corner
Me: I shoot the monster
You: Nope, you can't, you had to shoot it before it started moving around the corner.
Me: But there was nothing to shoot at before it was around the corner
You: Tough break, bro. It's in the middle of its move action now, you have to wait until it finishes.
Monster: Still walkin
Me: Can I shoot him now
You: Nope, gotta wait
Monster: Okay, here I am - RAAAA!!!
You: See, there. He's done with his move action. He's gonna take a teeny break for a sec here before he does his standard action. You can shoot him now if you like.
Me: But I didn't ready my action with the triggering condition of before the monster attacked me; my triggering condition was "when it comes around the corner." Since I didn't take my readied action when the triggering condition went off, don't I have to wait for it to happen again?
You: No, besides we already established that that triggering condition is impossible to satisfy. Just shoot him now.
Me: But I don't wanna shoot him now; he's all up in my grill and will get an AoO, which he wouldn't have gotten if I had shot him when he came around the corner and was clear across the room!
You: Hey, I don't make the rules, pal.
Me (in my best Daffy Duck): You're despicable...
I will say once again, this is not something I would enforce.
However every counter point up till now is "well this bit seems more important than that bit so we should ignore that bit" and "but then it makes all of this silly".
Yes. Yes it does. It is badly worded. I'm not arguing that. I'd even quite happily say that the part I'm looking at is INTENDED to say "If your condition is met your action occurs immediately". That would have been a much better form of wording.
However that is NOT what it says.
And the "if he is still capable of doing so" does not help your argument, if I ready against some-one running at me, then I get to shoot him before it it still applies perfectly since I took mine just before his INTERRUPTING his action. If he can still move, he gets to move.
Yes you state the conditions, and then if your conditions are met you can take your action which occurs JUST BEFORE the triggering action. If that means you can't take it then obviously your conditions weren't met.
EDIT:- which, by the way, I already said. Maybe you missed it. I will however say this again, Under my interpretation all the rules are being followed, under yours you are ignoring a line of the rules. Nowhere does it say you can take the action as soon as your conditions are me, just that you can take the action any time once they have, provided it is before the triggering action (aka following the rest of the rules).
I'm quite frankly going to stop here. Not once have you been able to show that the action can take place any time other than before the triggering action, just that it probably SHOULD be able too. I agree with this. But my point still stands.
I will say once again, this is not something I would enforce.
However every counter point up till now is "well this bit seems more important than that bit so we should ignore that bit" and "but then it makes all of this silly".
Yes. Yes it does. It is badly worded. I'm not arguing that. I'd even quite happily say that the part I'm looking at is INTENDED to say "If your condition is met your action occurs immediately". That would have been a much better form of wording.
However that is NOT what it says.
And the "if he is still capable of doing so" does not help your argument, if I ready against some-one running at me, then I get to shoot him before it it still applies perfectly since I took mine just before his INTERRUPTING his action. If he can still move, he gets to move.
Please consider to the argument on conditions vs. actions.
Neither I nor Jason Nelson have ignored that bit of the text. The argument is simply that is isn't relevant in all circumstances.
This is probably the worst thread de-rail I have seen on Paizo.
Never Never - either give it up or get a room (new thread).
I wanna see typing in all caps and CASTYS making unsupported statements!
I'm done, I don't have any interest in arguing this further since it's obviously not MEANT to work they way I've stated.
Edit:- I love how you just called out me there, it takes two (or three in this case) too tango y'know :t.
For the purposes of not de-railing this thread I've chosen to edit this post rather than post again.I will state a last examples showing how it is meant to work according to raw, following all the rules, and why that means the wording is stupid.
My triggering condition is when a target enters my sight. The Move action moves a target into sight and this triggers it. However you have to attack just before the move action, since that is the triggering action. This means you miss.
According to the RAW That is exactly what happens. It follows all the rules stated. It is stupid and no-one would ever enforce it, but that's what the rules say.
Just so everyone knows, this whole thing started when I pointed out readying a action against a charge, would require you to take the action just before AM started moving, since a charge action is one action. Obviously this is not the RAI, it is however exactly what the RAW says, don't bother flagging this for FAQ, We don't need designers to tell us to use common sense.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
My thoughts are simple, it is badly worded.
All of your points are fine points, and I see where you are coming from, nevertheless it does quite simply state your action comes just before the triggering action.
From how I've seen it it works like this, You ready a action, and set your conditions. For example, "when the target gets within 30 feet".
You then proceed to move through the turn, and when the conditions are filled, the target can take his action JUST BEFORE the action that triggers it. IF that means you can't actually do the action then obviously the conditions weren't met, and you move on.
But the conditions HAVE been met.
For the case of "when the target gets in 30 feet" If his move is to move within 30 feet, it triggers and you shoot even though they haven't moved yet.
What you propose is an infinite time loop.
My trigger is when you walk within 30 feet.
You walk within 30 feet.
Are you within 30 feet? Yes. The condition has been met.
Except now you haven't moved yet, and you're not within 30 feet. So now the condition hasn't been met.
What happens now?
Is the person actually prevented from moving within 30 feet of me, because if they did my triggered action would go off, which would retroactively force them to not have moved yet? Is their action canceled by mine or is mine canceled by theirs?
If they CAN move to within 30 feet, and do, then are or are they not ACTUALLY within 30 feet? If they are actually within 30 feet, how has my triggering condition of "when you walk within 30 feet" not been met?
If they couldn't be seen before that, then the next action they take is fulfilling the conditions and you get your action.
They already HAVE fulfilled the conditions. The conditions were that they be within 30 feet. They are within 30 feet, ipso facto they fulfill the condition of being within 30 feet. They can't simultaneously be within 30 feet and not within 30 feet.
Once again yes this renders brace as technically useless. This is not a problem with my interpretation of the readied action rules, it is a problem with the wording of charge. Obviously the move and attack are meant to count as separate actions, however they not in the wording given.
Activities literally means "busy or vigorous actions or movements". In other words you CAN interrupt his actions or movements, provided you follow all the rules in readied action, such as taking your action just before the triggering action.
You aren't proposing following ALL the rules in readied action.
You are proposing following ONE of the rules in readied action - the "this before that" rule - and ONLY that rule.
You aren't proposing following the rule on interruption, or continuing interrupted actions after resolving the readied action, or the rule that your action can be triggered anytime (not just before the other action takes place), or the rule that says you specify the conditions under which you will take the action.
BTW, activities need not be physical, nor busy, nor vigorous. You can have quiet activities, meditative activities, combat activities, all kinds of activities. They include but aren't restricted to movement or combat.
Once again, I'm aware this is likely not going with the RAI and as such i'd never enforce it in a actual game. But RAW that is exactly what it says.
It's almost 3 in the morning, so really I should stop. I'll just ask one more question:
Which to you seems more likely?
1. The single sentence "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it," as you interpret it (discrete, indivisible action blocks) trumps all other rules in the surrounding paragraph and the rest of the book.
This means the rule works as you believe, which requires you to accept that written rules based on readying are nonsensical, that declared actions of players be revised (I know your trigger was THIS condition, but now it's going to be THAT instead), and all of the tortuous logic of retroactive impossibility and simple silliness.
2. Maybe there is another explanation for what that sentence could mean that would not require so much logical confabulation to make it sorta-kinda-but-not-really work.
Maybe the preponderance of rules leaning one way (readying jumps in the middle of an action) and that one sentence seeming to point the other way (readying goes back in time) shows you the way.
Anyway, I'm off to bed. Happy Gaming!