Readying Attack vs. Arrows


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 413 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

How on earth could this possibly be considered cheese? Somebody essentially wastes their round in the MERE HOPE that physical projectiles will come THEIR way just so they can ATTEMPT to sunder ONE of them.

That strikes me as the absolute opposite of cheese! Though not terribly effective in the vast majority of situations, it has infinite value as a mood setting maneuver.

And it in no way invalidates the Deflect Arrows feat. Deflect Arrows allows you to do this more efficiently (automatically) without a readied action (no wasted turns) and allows you access to other cool things later on like Snatch Arrows.

You may be right about unfair statements Selgard, but saying that "allowing it is cheese" or "the rules clearly don't allow for it" when that is obviously unclear is equally unfair.


Ravingdork wrote:

How on earth could this possibly be considered cheese? Somebody essentially wastes their round in the MERE HOPE that physical projectiles will come THEIR way just so they can ATTEMPT to sunder ONE of them.

That strikes me as the absolute opposite of cheese! Though not terribly effective in the vast majority of situations, it has infinite value as a mood setting maneuver.

And it in no way invalidates the Deflect Arrows feat. Deflect Arrows allows you to do this more efficiently (automatically) without a readied action (no wasted turns) and allows you access to other cool things later on like Snatch Arrows.

You may be right about unfair statements Selgard, but saying that "allowing it is cheese" or "the rules clearly don't allow for it" when that is obviously unclear is equally unfair.

Also, if they get the action, the initiative is changed up so the player goes after the archer, meaning the archer gets at least one free shot anyway.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Swivl wrote:
Also, if they get the action, the initiative is changed up so the player goes after the archer, meaning the archer gets at least one free shot anyway.

Not quite.

Readying an Action rules excerpt wrote:
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.


There is a way to do that by RAW. It's called "total defense". You say you use "total defense" and when your opponent shots at you and doesn't hit you, you just describe it as "I deflected the arrow with my sword".
Done. And it's even superior to readying because you have a chance to "deflect" more than one arrow.


Ravingdork wrote:
Swivl wrote:
Also, if they get the action, the initiative is changed up so the player goes after the archer, meaning the archer gets at least one free shot anyway.

Not quite.

Readying an Action rules excerpt wrote:
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.

Huh.

It makes total sense, but our table has done it incorrectly, then (in 2 ways: first, we used to ignore the initiative change entirely, then we put them behind it). I don't know how we've had this ready action thing off for so long.

On-topic, it still looks like an entire non-issue until proven otherwise. Personally, if resolved as an attack roll, AC 13 feels a bit too low (23 is better, but a scaling AC even better than that), but I really don't have a problem with this.

And the reason I'm not taken entirely to the total defense explanation is that it doesn't allow for swatting down arrows not aimed at you.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
ImperatorK wrote:

There is a way to do that by RAW. It's called "total defense". You say you use "total defense" and when your opponent shots at you and doesn't hit you, you just describe it as "I deflected the arrow with my sword".

Done. And it's even superior to readying because you have a chance to "deflect" more than one arrow.

That would interfere with the "an ammo projectile is destroyed 50% of the time on a miss" rule, as an arrow deflected by a sword will most certainly be destroyed.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
ImperatorK wrote:

There is a way to do that by RAW. It's called "total defense". You say you use "total defense" and when your opponent shots at you and doesn't hit you, you just describe it as "I deflected the arrow with my sword".

Done. And it's even superior to readying because you have a chance to "deflect" more than one arrow.

That would interfere with the "an ammo projectile is destroyed 50% of the time on a miss" rule, as an arrow defelected by a sword will most certainly be destroyed.


No, it won't. You can simply ricochet it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Selgard wrote:

I have to say I disagree with your notion that disallowing this cheese attempt to avoid a feat equates with RP being dead.

Feats exist for a reason. Advocate for it being banned or something but don't just come in trying to find some back-door way to do it anyway.

I'd like to remind you that a readied action against an arrow is still, drastically, different than the Deflect Arrows feat.

I take it that your point is more to do with it's similarity to the feat, and therefore possibly about taking away from Deflect Arrow. It's fine to say that you dislike the similarity and can explain why, but please don't say that it's the same as the feat. It is not.

You'll get more focus and strength to your opinion/argument if you can keep from deflecting the reader's thoughts to this equated fallacy.


Ravingdork wrote:
You may be right about unfair statements Selgard, but saying that "allowing it is cheese" or "the rules clearly don't allow for it" when that is obviously unclear is equally unfair.

RD is right. This thread reminds me of the sort of things that I see in the PFS forums, where people basically crawl all over RAW and rulings finding ways to not allow things.

My philosophy of DMing is that the job of the DM is to help facilitate players doing heroic things, since they are, you know, the heroes. I disagree with Selgard mainly because his logic runs counter to this philosophy by seeking out reasons to not let players do things. The reason that this game needs a human DM who can make judgement calls is specifically for when players wind up somewhere where there are no explicit rules.

I also fail to see how people are not understanding the logic of the feat letting you do it automatically and better. That is still worth a feat.

I like RD's idea of making it a sunder against the archer to knock the arrow away.


By RAW, I can use a move action to pick up an unattended object, right?


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quantum Steve wrote:
By RAW, I can use a move action to pick up an unattended object, right?

Yes. And this provokes.

Are you next going to say that a person could ready an action to "pick up" an arrow that was fired at them right out of the air?

If so, that faces the same problems of inefficiency as deflecting it without Deflect Arrows.

In any event, I would never treat a fired arrow as an unattended object anyways (hence why I recommended using combat maneuvers above). If they were considered unattended, people hiding behind a wall of fire, a fire shield, or similar effects would be immune to archery altogether.


Saint Caleth wrote:
My philosophy of DMing is that the job of the DM is to help facilitate players doing heroic things, since they are, you know, the heroes. I disagree with Selgard mainly because his logic runs counter to this philosophy by seeking out reasons to not let players do things. The reason that this game needs a human DM who can make judgement calls is specifically for when players wind up somewhere where there are no explicit rules.

While still following the rules, and making sure other players don't get screwed in the process. Total Defense can simulate this ability perfectly, all you have to do is change the way you describe it. That is a lot easier and is a fair way of doing it.

Quote:

I also fail to see how people are not understanding the logic of the feat letting you do it automatically and better. That is still worth a feat.

I like RD's idea of making it a sunder against the archer to knock the arrow away.

I agree... if they have Improved Sunder, otherwise the arrow gets an AoO and may hit them anyway.

Again, would you allow someone to knock a sword away with another sword (why doesn't anyone want to answer this question? I really think it shows the flaws in your thinking)


We have answered its called sunder or disarm. Note that no one has advocated simply knocking the arrow aside we have advocated attacking and thus hopefully damaging the arrow enough that it is rendered useless in flight.


Or even a readied use of dirty trick on the guy swinging his sword to cause him to be blinded or stunned for a round.

Oh and since the arrow isn't threating nor the archer (short of having the snap shot line.) unless someone else is threating the guy with a sword his is AoO free.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Jodokai wrote:
Again, would you allow someone to knock a sword away with another sword (why doesn't anyone want to answer this question? I really think it shows the flaws in your thinking)

Absolutely I would allow this, but it's not really necessary as it is better modeled by Combat Expertise or fighting defensively or the Duelist's parry ability. Besides, a person could just ready an action to move away before being targeted by an attack.


Jodokai wrote:


I agree... if they have Improved Sunder, otherwise the arrow gets an AoO and may hit them anyway.

Objects do not get AoOs. So you can provoke vs the arrow, but it can't do jack about it.


Ravingdork wrote:

How on earth could this possibly be considered cheese? Somebody essentially wastes their round in the MERE HOPE that physical projectiles will come THEIR way just so they can ATTEMPT to sunder ONE of them.

That strikes me as the absolute opposite of cheese! Though not terribly effective in the vast majority of situations, it has infinite value as a mood setting maneuver.

And it in no way invalidates the Deflect Arrows feat. Deflect Arrows allows you to do this more efficiently (automatically) without a readied action (no wasted turns) and allows you access to other cool things later on like Snatch Arrows.

You may be right about unfair statements Selgard, but saying that "allowing it is cheese" or "the rules clearly don't allow for it" when that is obviously unclear is equally unfair.

It's pretty clear that it doesn't and shouldn't work, to me. I can also understand though that folks disagree. Disagreement isn't a bad thing to me, however. Folks can read the rules how they want and play it how they want.

-S


GrenMeera wrote:
Selgard wrote:

I have to say I disagree with your notion that disallowing this cheese attempt to avoid a feat equates with RP being dead.

Feats exist for a reason. Advocate for it being banned or something but don't just come in trying to find some back-door way to do it anyway.

I'd like to remind you that a readied action against an arrow is still, drastically, different than the Deflect Arrows feat.

I take it that your point is more to do with it's similarity to the feat, and therefore possibly about taking away from Deflect Arrow. It's fine to say that you dislike the similarity and can explain why, but please don't say that it's the same as the feat. It is not.

You'll get more focus and strength to your opinion/argument if you can keep from deflecting the reader's thoughts to this equated fallacy.

I don't consider it a fallacy at all.

You are trying to say that by making it take a little longer that you can do something that only a feat lets you do. i.e. deflect an arrow outta the sky. Deflect, attack, sunder, whatever you care to call it.

The game has several ways already to do this.
1) take the feat.
2) total defense
3) combat expertise

There are multiple ways to do what you are asking to do- I just don't think that readying an action to negate someone's attack like that is one of them.

if someone wanted to go total defense and say "if it misses me I'd like to say it swung and knocked it outta the sky". No prob.
The same with combat expertise.
or even just normal ole AC. Archer misses, defender says he knocked it outta the air. No problem.

But readying the action to make sure you defeat the single attack thats most likely to hit- I just disagree with.

What other feats can we invalidate by just making the action take a little longer?
Can I craft stuff I don't have the feats for by making it take a little longer to do? How about metamagic feats? Can I use those if I just take a little longer to cast the spell?

If you scroll (or flip through) the feats you'll notice there are two types:

Type 1. A feat that alters how something works (aka something you can already do) into something else.
Like Die Hard.
You can tell because after Benefit it says "Normal:" and then tells you what would happen without the feat.
Exotic Weapon prof is another very good example of this.
You can wield a weapon without the feat. And if you do, you take a -4 hit. You know this /because it tells you/.

Now there are other kinds of feats.
Type 2. These are feats that give you something you wouldn't have without it, or let you do somethign you wouldn't have without it. For these things there is no "normal" because "normal" is "you can't do it at all."

Crafting feats, metamagic feats, alot of the +X bonus feats, these all work that way.
Without the feat, you don't get the benefit of the feat.
Not if you take a round to do it not if you take four rounds or three years- the you either have the feat and can do it or you don't have the feat and can't do it.

Go read Deflect Arrows.
Prequesite.
Benefit
No "Normal" line.
Why not?
because Normally- you /can not deflect an arrow/.
If you could deflect an arrow by taking some special action without the feat, then that's where it would be listed. It would say
"Normally, you can take a full round action to deflect an arrow"
or "Normally, its a swift action to deflect an arrow"
or "Normally.. xyzbbqsauce" or whatever the rule is.

This is something that requires the training of a feat to do. Without it- you can not do it.

Now you might argue the feat is stupid. Bad written. Has silly preq's. That its something that you shouldn't need a feat for.
And really- I'm all for a discussion about those things.
But as the rules stand now there is exactly one way to do anything /close/ to what the OP described: and that is by taking this feat.

Without the feat, it can not be done.

-S


Once again big difference in deflecting and destroying.

The feat allows a once a round auto negation of a ranged weapon attack.

Readying allows you to give up your turn to have a chance to hit the arrow and then hope you do enough damage to break the arrow or you still get hit.


Selgard wrote:
I don't consider it a fallacy at all.

It is a fallacy to say that readying an action is equal to the feat. This isn't actually disputable because the feat is a free action. A free action is not equal to a standard action.

Selgard wrote:
You are trying to say that by making it take a little longer that you can do something that only a feat lets you do. i.e. deflect an arrow outta the sky. Deflect, attack, sunder, whatever you care to call it.

I'm not trying to say anything. I actually agree with you about using Total Defense. I only wanted to make sure that people got back onto topic and discussed worthwhile opinions and points instead of consistently saying that the idea is equal to a feat, which it is not.

That all being said, and so that you don't misunderstand my intent once more, I see that the rest of your post did EXACTLY this. I'm unsure why you used my quote and seemed to direct it at me, since I already agreed with you, but my point seems to have been made. You did indeed correct your wording, and made much better points for your argument because of it. Thank you! ^.^


Starbuck_II wrote:
Jodokai wrote:


I agree... if they have Improved Sunder, otherwise the arrow gets an AoO and may hit them anyway.
Objects do not get AoOs. So you can provoke vs the arrow, but it can't do jack about it.

The arrow doesn't get an AoO, the archer does.


Only if he has Snap shot or is adjacent to the guy readying and has a way to take AoO (such as Ius or Armor Spikes)


I found a way to do it by RAW - Wall of Blades maneuver from ToB. an immediate action counter that allows to use your attack bonus instead of AC for one melee or ranged attack.
There. Readying to sunder an arrow would obsolete this maneuver. That's a reason for me to not allow it (unless as just a fancy fluff description).


ImperatorK wrote:

I found a way to do it by RAW - Wall of Blades maneuver from ToB. an immediate action counter that allows to use your attack bonus instead of AC for one melee or ranged attack.

There. Readying to sunder an arrow would obsolete this maneuver. That's a reason for me to not allow it (unless as just a fancy fluff description).

Well if you need 3.5 splat material to make your case my work is done.


Ravingdork wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
Again, would you allow someone to knock a sword away with another sword (why doesn't anyone want to answer this question? I really think it shows the flaws in your thinking)
Absolutely I would allow this, but it's not really necessary as it is better modeled by Combat Expertise or fighting defensively or the Duelist's parry ability. Besides, a person could just ready an action to move away before being targeted by an attack.

Just like knocking an arrow out of the sky is better modeled with Deflect Arrows?


Also on the whole "allowing this invalidates X theory"I have to ask those of you claiming this. Would you allow a player to ready a sunder or Disarm attempt against an on coming foe?

I have to ask since it would completly invalidate the feat Crane Wing.


Ah okay, so a melee person needs a feat to knock a sword away without provoking... but it's unreasonable to have the arrow deflector do the same thing. Have I got the gist of your argument?


Talonhawke wrote:

Also on the whole "allowing this invalidates X theory"I have to ask those of you claiming this. Would you allow a player to ready a sunder or Disarm attempt against an on coming foe?

I have to ask since it would completly invalidate the feat Crane Wing.

No it really doesn't, because if you try to disarm or sunder without the feat you provoke. See it takes a feat to do it.

EDIT: The other flaw with that is we don't have to make up rules to adjudicate that. There are already rules to allow this.


Talonhawke wrote:

Also on the whole "allowing this invalidates X theory"I have to ask those of you claiming this. Would you allow a player to ready a sunder or Disarm attempt against an on coming foe?

I have to ask since it would completly invalidate the feat Crane Wing.

I would, because it's allowed by RAW and it doesn't invalidate the feat. With Disarm or Sunder you still have to make attack rolls and you provoke AoO without a feat, while Crane Wing is an auto-negates an attack. also, deflecting an attack and disarming/sundering are different things.


Jodokai wrote:
Ah okay, so a melee person needs a feat to knock a sword away without provoking... but it's unreasonable to have the arrow deflector do the same thing. Have I got the gist of your argument?
Reread my post or even better I'll quote it
Talonhawke wrote:
Oh and since the arrow isn't threating nor the archer (short of having the snap shot line.) unless someone else is threating the guy with a sword his is AoO free

Notice I premise that he in fact does provoke an AoO if he is in a threatened square. Just like how I can trip with a whip from 15 feat away you can't take an AoO unless you threaten my square somehow.


Jodokai wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:

Also on the whole "allowing this invalidates X theory"I have to ask those of you claiming this. Would you allow a player to ready a sunder or Disarm attempt against an on coming foe?

I have to ask since it would completly invalidate the feat Crane Wing.

No it really doesn't, because if you try to disarm or sunder without the feat you provoke. See it takes a feat to do it.

EDIT: The other flaw with that is we don't have to make up rules to adjudicate that. There are already rules to allow this.

While the rules aren't perfect(I agree with RD here CMD would be a much better choice than unattended object) we do have rules to allow attacking objects, and for readying actions.


Sure. you can ready a move, standard, swift or free action. None of them allow by RAW to deflect incoming arrows. Well, maybe in fluff only.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am only against this being done, easily. If it can be set up mechanically to represent it's extreme difficulty, and not take away from those who invested training(feats, class abilities) to do it. You accomplish these two things, and you are kosher in my book.


Talonhawke wrote:
While the rules aren't perfect(I agree with RD here CMD would be a much better choice than unattended object) we do have rules to allow attacking objects, and for readying actions.

And where does it say an arrow in flight is an unattended object? The rules aren't perfect because they're not meant to be used this way.

The bottom line is that you would allow it for ranged attacks, but would require a feat to do it with melee attacks. While from a logic standpoint, it makes sense to be able to knock arrows out of the air, it happens in the source material (being fantasy stories). The problem is a balance issue.

You (you being plural) imply that those of us who would disallow out are narrow minded, but I think it's just the opposite. You don't seem to be able to disassociate a mechanic from a description. Ultimately what are you trying to accomplish? You're trying to use a full round action to not get hit by arrows, but there's a chance they may still hit you. Explain why that isn't just Full Defensive?


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Jodokai wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
Again, would you allow someone to knock a sword away with another sword (why doesn't anyone want to answer this question? I really think it shows the flaws in your thinking)
Absolutely I would allow this, but it's not really necessary as it is better modeled by Combat Expertise or fighting defensively or the Duelist's parry ability. Besides, a person could just ready an action to move away before being targeted by an attack.
Just like knocking an arrow out of the sky is better modeled with Deflect Arrows?

Yes, but just because there is a better model does not invalidate/make impossible other lesser methods, however.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Smashing an object is a sunder attempt which by RAW can be readied therefor Readying to attack an object is RAW. The only issue that arises comes from whether or not the arrow unattended if it is then its way to easy to hit however treating it like it is turns this into a very simple CMB(smasher) vs. CMD(Archer) check.


You're not attacking an object. You're attacking an attack.


Jodokai wrote:
And where does it say an arrow in flight is an unattended object? The rules aren't perfect because they're not meant to be used this way.

The stealth rules aren't perfect but I'm sure you let rogues sneak.

Jodokai wrote:
The bottom line is that you would allow it for ranged attacks, but would require a feat to do it with melee attacks. While from a logic standpoint, it makes sense to be able to knock arrows out of the air, it happens in the source material (being fantasy stories). The problem is a balance issue.

Balance would only be an issue if a guy with a reach weapon couldn't do the same. The feat makes it easier to do in melee but if you keep you distance you never need it.

Jodokai wrote:
You (you being plural) imply that those of us who would disallow out are narrow minded, but I think it's just the opposite. You don't seem to be able to disassociate a mechanic from a description. Ultimately what are you trying to accomplish? You're trying to use a full round action to not get hit by arrows, but there's a chance they may still hit you. Explain why that isn't just Full Defensive?

Like I keep saying destroying the arrow isnt the same as deflecting the arrow.


Ravingdork wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
Again, would you allow someone to knock a sword away with another sword (why doesn't anyone want to answer this question? I really think it shows the flaws in your thinking)
Absolutely I would allow this, but it's not really necessary as it is better modeled by Combat Expertise or fighting defensively or the Duelist's parry ability. Besides, a person could just ready an action to move away before being targeted by an attack.
Just like knocking an arrow out of the sky is better modeled with Deflect Arrows?
Yes, but just because there is a better model does not invalidate/make impossible other lesser methods, however.

What you are proposing is miles away from what I would consider cheese. You are attaching a mechanic which accounts for both the combat abilities of the arrow's target and the person firing the arrow. Your solution of a disarm or sunder attempt is quite reasonable, and would not upset me if I encountered it at your table. What would upset me is giving the arrow an ac of 13 and allowing a simple attack roll against that preposterously low ac to determine the success of what I think most of us would consider a fairly difficult task.


ImperatorK wrote:
You're not attacking an object. You're attacking an attack.

And your attacking a Strawman.


Talonhawke wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
And where does it say an arrow in flight is an unattended object? The rules aren't perfect because they're not meant to be used this way.
The stealth rules aren't perfect but I'm sure you let rogues sneak

You're right, because the rules are intended to let a Rogue sneak. That is the difference.

P.S. He hasn't changed your position at all, hence no straw man.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
ImperatorK wrote:
You're not attacking an object. You're attacking an attack.

Are you REALLY trying to convince people that an arrow is not an object?

Good luck.


It is not treated as normal object in this situation when rules are concerned. It is an attack.

Dark Archive

Could a wizard ready an action to cast telekinesis when the arrow is fired and use the violent thrust maneuver to turn the arrow around in flight and attempt to stick it in the archer?

Or do they need the deflect arrows feat to do that too?


Happler wrote:

Could a wizard ready an action to cast telekinesis when the arrow is fired and use the violent thrust maneuver to turn the arrow around in flight and attempt to stick it in the archer?

Or do they need the deflect arrows feat to do that too?

I'm not good with spells. Can Telekinesis deflect attacks?


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
ImperatorK wrote:
It is not treated as normal object in this situation when rules are concerned. It is an attack.

Oh sure it's an attack, but it is also an arrow, an object. I will be quite surprised if you can prove otherwise.


It is not treated as an object. It is an attack.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

An attack, with an object? I have no idea how anyone is trying to work this now. All I know is, if a DM allows this in a game, and does it so that it is some sort of easy task, I would call shenanigans.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
ImperatorK wrote:
It is not treated as an object. It is an attack.

Proof?

201 to 250 of 413 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Readying Attack vs. Arrows All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.