Readying Attack vs. Arrows


Rules Questions

251 to 300 of 413 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Of what?


ImperatorK wrote:
It is not treated as an object. It is an attack.

Depends on your definition of the word "is". ;-)

I'm with some other guys, here: Sunder and call it a day.


I would just use Wall of Blades. It's there for a reason. Of course I play 3.P, so I can. PF people are less fortunate. Or people who ban ToB.


ImperatorK wrote:
I would just use Wall of Blades. It's there for a reason. Of course I play 3.P, so I can. PF people are less fortunate. Or people who ban ToB.

Wall of Blades actually has more qualifiers than that, but that's quite off-topic.

For the telekinesis, I'd think that's a fun application of the spell, and pending any contradiction in the spell description I'd be fine with that.

Speaking of spells, that is probably where I draw the line and say there is no equivalency there: no attacking a spell (more likely just break the weapon trying to swat that scorching ray out of the sky, but my barbarian friend you are certainly welcome to try).


Be afraid of that barbarian he might have spell sunder.


It should be possible, I'd abstract the AC of the arrow to roughly 25 or 30 though, in line with similar options in other d20 systems (star wars saga)

It's still a waste of a readied action though. better to just take the feats


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

Proof that it is considered an attack, but not also considered an arrow (an object).

If you are going to make such an unusual claim, you best be ready to back it up with some evidence, or no one is going to take you seriously.


Where did I say it's not an object?


ImperatorK wrote:
It is not treated as an object. It is an attack.

Right here.


I didn't say it's not an object. Try again.


Its an object, its an attack, its an object used to make an attack..
who cares?

Call it a q-tip for all it matters. Its a flying thing someone is using to attack someone else with, that there's arleady a feat to take out of the air and avoid the attack.

You are still attempting to just skip the feat chain by tacking on a little extra time to accomplish something the rules don't otherwise allow.

When you have a feat that substantially does what you are trying to do, you go to that feat to find out how to do it- or the rule(s) that the feat is based off of. The feat here is clear. The rules are clear.

What you are trying to do is add time to what the feat says, in order to do what the feat gives without taking the feat.

Seriously- list off feats you'd let the PC's ignore by just taking on a little extra time to it.

I'd Love to get in on a campaign where I can just add time to actions that require feats, and get to pull it off anyway. It just opens up so many more possibilities.

-S


So then Selgard your against readied sunders vs Melee weapons then?

I mean Crane wing is a feat that blocks one melee attack and we would hate for someone to have a chance to destroy a weapon with a readied action when there is a feat that knocks it aside effortlessly.


Sunder

You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Conditions). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.

You can't sunder an arrow in flight regardless. Its not held or worn by someone/thing. (i.e. an opponent).

And yes I would, Talon. The rules specifically provide for it.
You can 1) ready an attack 2) when someone attacks you to 3) attack 4) their weapon.

Or you can ready an attack to sunder their shield or armor or ring or, well, you get the idea.

The arrow thing isn't covered, however. That requires the feat.

Keep in mind also the relative velocities involved here. Swinging a sword is /not/ the same thing as an arrow flying across the room at you.
Which is probably why they provided for the one and not the other.
(keep in mind the AoO though if you don't have imp. sunder).

-S


Breaking and Entering
When attempting to break an object, you have two choices: smash it with a weapon or break it with sheer strength.

Smashing an Object
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver. Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.

Please read the above smashing an object is in fact by RAW a sunder attempt.

So the rules do in fact cover me readying to Sunder an Arrow. It even points out that I use CMB to determine if I hit.

Try again.


No need to try again. I just fall back to what I've been saying all along.

/go back to the feat/. Its what its there for.

So you are trying to use the rules on sundering an unattended object to attack someone's weapon in mid flight, and you wonder why people are objecting to this?

There's a reason they made this into a feat, Talonhawke. Not just some feat but a feat with two barriers to entry. (another feat, and an ability score requirement)

This isn't something they failed to take into account. They took it into account by making a feat for it. You are now trying to get around that by using a rule that doesn't really fit. Its not an unattended object (its a weapon) but it also doens't fit the weapon rules (because for that split second its in flight, its not in their hand either)

If its on the ground? no problem. If its in their hand? no problem.
if its in that in-between point- there is a problem. Its not un attended but its also not wielded.
Because it specifically isn't wielded (how can it, be? its in mid-air?) but the unattended rules yield absolutely /ludicrous/ results.
(like it being about as easy to knock an arrow out of the air as it is to smack a chest with a club..)

(an arrow is base 18 -5 for inanimate -2 for just existing apparently, so AC 10).

The average commoner has a better chance to *knock an arrow out of the air* shot from 2 feet away than he has *to smack a goblin with his hoe*.

Or by the rules- he has the same chance to smack it with his hoe on the ground as he does to do it in mid flight.

While it says "Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they don't usually move" it fails to back that up by any rules to apply when an object is actually moving when you are trying to hit it- while still being inanimate. (sadly, throwing or flinging an object from a bow doesn't make it animated,. that requires magic.)

Its the inherent absurdity that the situation creates, that causes folks to say "thats crap, use the feat."
Because..well.. its crap.
Thats why there's a feat. They made a feat to specifically address this issue because /without/ that feat you have to wiggle around the rules abit just to come up with an answer whereby its easier to knock an arrow out of the sky than to split a goblin's skull.

(and don't think I didn't notice you are using a source of reference thats designed for doors and chests and such (aka, breaking and entering, the heading for that topic) and applying it to a weapon-in-use, as your method for even getting it this far..)

Use the feat! Thats why it was created. Quit trying to get around the feat. It doesn't work.

-S


ImperatorK wrote:
I didn't say it's not an object. Try again.

What's the difference if your argument is the same?

Player: I ready an action to sunder the arrow in flight.
GM: Okay, no, you can't do that.
Player: Why not?
GM: Because the arrow isn't an object. / Because the arrow isn't considered an object.

What it is and what it counts as in this case is exactly the same, and exactly what your argument is from what I can tell.

A ranged attack is an attack. The scenario in question happens to use an arrow to make that attack. He could have used a shuriken, or a throwing axe, or a chair, and my solution is the same according to what I've said upthread provided it's what the player wants.


Selgard wrote:

No need to try again. I just fall back to what I've been saying all along.

/go back to the feat/. Its what its there for.

You are splitting hairs for nothing. Nobody is interested in getting around the feat, and we've already pointed it out how it doesn't, in fact, do such a thing.

Fighting defensively doesn't replace combat expertise and so on, we've been here before.

And I've said this already, but deflect arrows doesn't cover anybody but yourself. There are feats printed outside the CRB that help protect others, but that doesn't mean the feats are needed to accomplish such a thing, only making it a lot easier to do.

And that's the whole point. It's not stepping on the toes of those with deflect arrows because those guys are a whole lot better at it, regardless of the odds in favor of the action.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Quote:
What's the difference if your argument is the same?

The difference is that you can't attack attacks. Unless you have some special ability for it. Like Wall of Blades.

If you're arguing that a shot (and still flying) arrow is an unattended object, you are being silly. And if you're arguing that a shot (and still flying) arrow is wielded or worn, you are being silly. I should disregard your arguments on this basis alone.
The arrow is neither an unattended object, nor wielded/worn. The only classification that remains is "an attack". And let me repeat: You can't attack attacks.
You can do what's allowed by rules - sunder or disarm, but a shot arrow qualifies for neither.


ImperatorK wrote:
If you're arguing that a shot (and still flying) arrow is an unattended object, you are being silly.

I don't see how so.

Unattended - Def. Having no attendants.
In this usage the arrow, traveling through the air, is attended by nothing but the laws of physics (of which all objects are at all times, therefore irrelevant).

Object - Well... anything is an object. Precisely for Pathfinder, it's more to do with not being a creature.

An arrow is undoubtedly an unattended object. I see absolutely no definition of the terms that would dictate otherwise.

An attack itself is an action, and consists of many components and objects, even a duration of time. An object is not an attack, but an object can be PART OF an attack. There is no exclusivity in these words.

A dove can be called a bird, but not all birds are doves. Yes, an arrow is part of an attack, but an arrow is NOT an attack and not all attacks require arrows. These words are not the same and should not be treated as the same.

I think the point you're actually trying to make is that the rules never suggest that the components of an attack are not subject to a different subset of rules, such as sundering unattended objects. You are arguing intent and RAI, not RAW. This goes back to an old D&D trope where you can argue that Pickpocket allows you to steal anything, such as an arrow out of the air. Certainly, we can assume that this wasn't the intent of the devs.

I am perfectly okay with allowing somebody to attempt a Sunder against an oncoming arrow specifically because the AC could be much higher due to size modifier and circumstance bonuses (at least a 23). I prefer to use the Full Defense action however simply because it's less tricky rule-wise.

I can see why others may think that this is simply stepping on a feat, and that's an opinion and perfectly valid. Some people use the rules as a method to determine what is allowed. Others view the rules as a guideline for the typically performed actions. Nobody is really wrong here, but are different styles of gaming.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
GrenMeera wrote:
Others view the rules as a guideline for the typically performed actions. Nobody is really wrong here, but are different styles of gaming.

Absolutely right.

I'm just stunned that my argument/interpretation is referred to as "silly" while also being told that an arrow is not an object.


Ravingdork wrote:
GrenMeera wrote:
Others view the rules as a guideline for the typically performed actions. Nobody is really wrong here, but are different styles of gaming.

Absolutely right.

I'm just stunned that my argument/interpretation is referred to as "silly" while also being told that an arrow is not an object.

RD, you could at least stop claiming that ImperatorK says an arrow is not an object. That would make you seem less silly.

What he is saying is that for the purpose of adjudicating an attack roll, the incoming arrow is considered an "attack" not an unattended object.

You can argue that he is wrong in that assertion, but you could at least stop claiming he is saying something he isn't saying, just to try to make your own argument sound better.

The point that is raised here is a reasonable one. Can you attempt to sunder an incoming sword attack? If so, how? If not, why not? If you can't attempt to sunder an incoming sword attack, why can you attempt to sunder an incoming arrow attack?

It would seem that if you could attempt to sunder one, you should be able to attempt to sunder the other.

Of course you can just assert that both attacks are done with "objects" that can be sundered.

So... if you can sunder incoming arrows, bullets, swords, axes, clubs and assorted other weapons or ammunition, what about natural attacks? Can you sunder the claws of an attacking dragon?

If not, why not? Are you claiming that dragon claws are not "objects?"


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Can you attempt to sunder an incoming sword attack? If so, how? If not, why not?

Yes, I don't see why not. A readied action should be able to do this. It is wielded and must use the sunder rules as such.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
So... if you can sunder incoming arrows, bullets, swords, axes, clubs and assorted other weapons or ammunition, what about natural attacks? Can you sunder the claws of an attacking dragon?

I'd say no on natural attacks. Why?

RAW wrote:

Sunder

You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.

RAW wrote:

Smashing an Object

Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver. Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC.

The object is used by an opponent and is animate, therefore you cannot use the smashing rules. The object is also not an item held or worn, and therefore you cannot use the typical Sunder rules.

There are, however, house rules that could make it possible. You could simply allow a wielded Sunder despite it being against the rules stated. I personally am uncertain how I'd feel about it, but would probably allow it and make it extraordinarily difficult. In fact, it should be difficult enough that even if you do succeed, it was a terrible idea to try.


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

RD, you could at least stop claiming that ImperatorK says an arrow is not an object. That would make you seem less silly.

What he is saying is that for the purpose of adjudicating an attack roll, the incoming arrow is considered an "attack" not an unattended object.

You can argue that he is wrong in that assertion, but you could at least stop claiming he is saying something he isn't saying, just to try to make your own argument sound better.

But I genuinely thought that was what he was trying to say. Was I wrong? He specifically stated that an arrow was not an object (or at least stopped being an object during an attack). That's just not possible. An arrow is always an object as long as it exists.


Ravingdork wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

RD, you could at least stop claiming that ImperatorK says an arrow is not an object. That would make you seem less silly.

What he is saying is that for the purpose of adjudicating an attack roll, the incoming arrow is considered an "attack" not an unattended object.

You can argue that he is wrong in that assertion, but you could at least stop claiming he is saying something he isn't saying, just to try to make your own argument sound better.

But I genuinely thought that was what he was trying to say. Was I wrong? He specifically stated that an arrow was not an object (or at least stopped being an object during an attack). That's just not possible. An arrow is always an object as long as it exists.

RD, I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here. But sometimes it's hard.

"Not treated as an object" is not the same thing as "not an object."

He is saying that for the purpose of game mechanics, an incoming arrow is part of the attack, not just an object that can be targeted like an apple on a table. There are all sorts of things in the rules where something is "treated as" something else. The most famous example is probably the ray attack which is "treated as a weapon".

You can argue that he is wrong and that incoming arrows are still "treated as objects". But to repeatedly insist that he is saying that an arrow is "not an object" is not advancing your side of the argument because all it means is that you are ignoring his prime point.


GrenMeera wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Can you attempt to sunder an incoming sword attack? If so, how? If not, why not?

Yes, I don't see why not. A readied action should be able to do this. It is wielded and must use the sunder rules as such.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
So... if you can sunder incoming arrows, bullets, swords, axes, clubs and assorted other weapons or ammunition, what about natural attacks? Can you sunder the claws of an attacking dragon?

I'd say no on natural attacks. Why?

RAW wrote:

Sunder

You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.

RAW wrote:

Smashing an Object

Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver. Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC.

The object is used by an opponent and is animate, therefore you cannot use the smashing rules. The object is also not an item held or worn, and therefore you cannot use the typical Sunder rules.

There are, however, house rules that could make it possible. You could simply allow a wielded Sunder despite it being against the rules stated. I personally am uncertain how I'd feel about it, but would probably allow it and make it extraordinarily difficult. In fact, it should be difficult enough that even if you do succeed, it was a terrible idea to try.

The problem is that the arrow isn't animated. its an arrow. To be animated it'd have to be capable of self adjusting its flight- as per the Animate Object spell, or even a construct (arrow, I guess?)

An arrow isn't animated whether its in flight, in your bag, drawn on the bow, sitting on the ground, or whatever. Its just an object.

If you assume it isn't talking about Animated Objects (capital letters there) then the words actually mean nothing since it doesn't also go into telling you how it being animated changes anything. To do that, you have to go to the Animated Objects rules to figure out the proper AC for the item.

The arrow is no more animated than the bow that shot it, or the sword trying to hit it.

-S

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Can I ready an action to deflect the rain, so I do not get wet?:)


GrenMeera wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Can you attempt to sunder an incoming sword attack? If so, how? If not, why not?

Yes, I don't see why not. A readied action should be able to do this. It is wielded and must use the sunder rules as such.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
So... if you can sunder incoming arrows, bullets, swords, axes, clubs and assorted other weapons or ammunition, what about natural attacks? Can you sunder the claws of an attacking dragon?

I'd say no on natural attacks. Why?

RAW wrote:

Sunder

You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.

RAW wrote:

Smashing an Object

Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver. Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC.

The object is used by an opponent and is animate, therefore you cannot use the smashing rules. The object is also not an item held or worn, and therefore you cannot use the typical Sunder rules.

There are, however, house rules that could make it possible. You could simply allow a wielded Sunder despite it being against the rules stated. I personally am uncertain how I'd feel about it, but would probably allow it and make it extraordinarily difficult. In fact, it should be difficult enough that even if you do succeed, it was a terrible idea to try.

I think it's hilarious this whole debate is still going on. I agree with you Green, I'd probably allow it, using one of the GM discretion techniques listed above, but it would be difficult and would only work to attempt to sunder a single incoming projectile. Even if successful, additional ranged attacks would be made normally. So the whole thing seems remarkably unwise to me, but hey, there are some situations where the sheer coolness of the endeavor could make it worth attempting.

My biggest concern over the most common attempts to support the concept are that they logically would allow attempts to sunder incoming supersonic bullets. Attempting to sunder an incoming arrow is just barely plausible enough that I would probably allow it. But slashing apart fingertip sized hunks of lead moving at 2,000 mph.... This has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. But there is no RAW way to differentiate between a 150mph 18" long arrow and a 2,000mph 1/2" lead slug.

For that matter, if someone truly wanted to stretch this to the limits of logical absurdity, because of the physical principle of "wave/particle duality" there is really no difference from a pure physics perspective between in incoming ray attack and an incoming arrow. Both are physical "objects" with mass, velocity, kinetic energy and a finite speed. The ray is just a whole heck of a lot faster than an arrow. So if someone wants to argue that by RAW speed doesn't matter, then you should be able to sunder or deflect an incoming ray as well.


Swivl wrote:
Selgard wrote:

No need to try again. I just fall back to what I've been saying all along.

/go back to the feat/. Its what its there for.

You are splitting hairs for nothing. Nobody is interested in getting around the feat, and we've already pointed it out how it doesn't, in fact, do such a thing.

Fighting defensively doesn't replace combat expertise and so on, we've been here before.

And I've said this already, but deflect arrows doesn't cover anybody but yourself. There are feats printed outside the CRB that help protect others, but that doesn't mean the feats are needed to accomplish such a thing, only making it a lot easier to do.

And that's the whole point. It's not stepping on the toes of those with deflect arrows because those guys are a whole lot better at it, regardless of the odds in favor of the action.

And so I'll go back and ask the same question I've asked several times.

What other feats are there that you can just tack extra time onto, and then do it without the feat?
Is it some arbitrary determination that makes this one special or can we go through the feats that have a similar format to this one and apply that rule as well?

I have to tell you- I want to be a caster in a campaign wherei can add a day or two to the crafting and make things without the feats. Or the summoner where I can add a round to the casting time and apply the summoning feats to my summons without blowing feats on them.

And I know it may seem like i'm trying to split hairs here, but I'm really not. This is the rules forum. If you are saying its fine by the rules to ignore this feat by adding extra time to accomplish it, then you are saying the rules work that way for every other place like it.

And there are /alot/ of feats that share that format.

-S


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
GrenMeera wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Can you attempt to sunder an incoming sword attack? If so, how? If not, why not?

Yes, I don't see why not. A readied action should be able to do this. It is wielded and must use the sunder rules as such.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
So... if you can sunder incoming arrows, bullets, swords, axes, clubs and assorted other weapons or ammunition, what about natural attacks? Can you sunder the claws of an attacking dragon?

I'd say no on natural attacks. Why?

RAW wrote:

Sunder

You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack.

RAW wrote:

Smashing an Object

Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver. Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object's AC.

The object is used by an opponent and is animate, therefore you cannot use the smashing rules. The object is also not an item held or worn, and therefore you cannot use the typical Sunder rules.

There are, however, house rules that could make it possible. You could simply allow a wielded Sunder despite it being against the rules stated. I personally am uncertain how I'd feel about it, but would probably allow it and make it extraordinarily difficult. In fact, it should be difficult enough that even if you do succeed, it was a terrible idea to try.

I think it's hilarious this whole debate is still going on. I agree with you Green, I'd probably allow it, using one of the GM discretion techniques listed above, but it would be difficult and would only work to attempt to sunder a single incoming projectile. Even if successful, additional ranged attacks would be made normally. So the whole thing seems remarkably unwise to me, but hey, there are some situations where the sheer coolness of the endeavor could make it worth attempting.

My...

Which is even /more/ amusing when you take into account that by raw the bullet, the arrow, the sling stone, heck a throw alchemist flask- all take exactly the same amount of time to pull/draw/throw and travel from the person to the target. :P

(which gets even sillier when you start tacking on more attacks in a round..)

-S


Ravingdork wrote:

Absolutely right.

I'm just stunned that my argument/interpretation is referred to as "silly" while also being told that an arrow is not an object.

Just for clarity, Talonhawke, this is a perfect example of the Straw Man fallacy.

What was said: Arrow isn't treated as an object.
Argument: How can you say an arrow isn't an object?

I think if you try to make up rules to cover this situation, you create huge issues for yourself, the bullet, as has been pointed out, the ray (say, aren't there rules for deflecting a ray? Why, yes there are, it requires a feat), why could a fighter not deflect a fireball with an arrow, or at least detonate it early?

We are all saying we'd allow a fighter to do this, the difference is, one side will use the rules that already exist (Complete Defense, Deflect Arrows, etc.) the other side wants to make up new rules.

Dark Archive

Selgard wrote:

Which is even /more/ amusing when you take into account that by raw the bullet, the arrow, the sling stone, heck a throw alchemist flask- all take exactly the same amount of time to pull/draw/throw and travel from the person to the target. :P

(which gets even sillier when you start tacking on more attacks in a round..)

-S

Well, remember, it does not give the actual times for any of those, only that the attack happens within 6 seconds. Not saying that it does not get silly, but there is nothing that states that the sling stones don't take a little longer to get to their target then the arrow or bullet. As long as they make it there in less then 6 seconds so to be counted in that round.

Granularity of the action system makes some things a little odd, but it would be a nightmare to work it out otherwise on the fly.

Or it would chance the power curve too much. For example, if it is a standard action to draw and fire an arrow, it should be a near free action to pull the trigger and fire a bullet (assuming the gun is loaded or a revolver). But if you call it a swift action (better representing the time to pull), you end up upping the power of the gun. After all, you could then full attack, and then fire off a shot.

Readying an action to try to deflect an arrow is also much weaker then the free action that you get with the feat. Plus, if you allow the readied action to be tried, then you give the possibility of the person with the feat being that much cooler by blocking 2 arrows a turn.

This is, after all, the same system that lets me ready an action to move a tower shield to provide total cover from the shooter after he starts to fire, but before the bullets hit me. This is even after I have been using that shield to raise my AC vs someone on the other side of me.


ImperatorK wrote:
Quote:
What's the difference if your argument is the same?

The difference is that you can't attack attacks. Unless you have some special ability for it. Like Wall of Blades.

If you're arguing that a shot (and still flying) arrow is an unattended object, you are being silly. And if you're arguing that a shot (and still flying) arrow is wielded or worn, you are being silly. I should disregard your arguments on this basis alone.
The arrow is neither an unattended object, nor wielded/worn. The only classification that remains is "an attack". And let me repeat: You can't attack attacks.
You can do what's allowed by rules - sunder or disarm, but a shot arrow qualifies for neither.

I didn't say attack an attack; I said sunder an arrow. I'm not saying an arrow in flight is wielded or worn, but I am saying that if somebody really wants to do this to stop his down ally from being shot at and finished off I'd allow it.


Selgard wrote:
Swivl wrote:
Selgard wrote:

No need to try again. I just fall back to what I've been saying all along.

/go back to the feat/. Its what its there for.

You are splitting hairs for nothing. Nobody is interested in getting around the feat, and we've already pointed it out how it doesn't, in fact, do such a thing.

Fighting defensively doesn't replace combat expertise and so on, we've been here before.

And I've said this already, but deflect arrows doesn't cover anybody but yourself. There are feats printed outside the CRB that help protect others, but that doesn't mean the feats are needed to accomplish such a thing, only making it a lot easier to do.

And that's the whole point. It's not stepping on the toes of those with deflect arrows because those guys are a whole lot better at it, regardless of the odds in favor of the action.

And so I'll go back and ask the same question I've asked several times.

What other feats are there that you can just tack extra time onto, and then do it without the feat?
Is it some arbitrary determination that makes this one special or can we go through the feats that have a similar format to this one and apply that rule as well?

I have to tell you- I want to be a caster in a campaign wherei can add a day or two to the crafting and make things without the feats. Or the summoner where I can add a round to the casting time and apply the summoning feats to my summons without blowing feats on them.

And I know it may seem like i'm trying to split hairs here, but I'm really not. This is the rules forum. If you are saying its fine by the rules to ignore this feat by adding extra time to accomplish it, then you are saying the rules work that way for every other place like it.

And there are /alot/ of feats that share that format.

-S

Nobody is doing anything without qualifying for a feat to do it. That's why I say this perspective needs adjustment.


Selgard wrote:
Swivl wrote:
Selgard wrote:

No need to try again. I just fall back to what I've been saying all along.

/go back to the feat/. Its what its there for.

You are splitting hairs for nothing. Nobody is interested in getting around the feat, and we've already pointed it out how it doesn't, in fact, do such a thing.

Fighting defensively doesn't replace combat expertise and so on, we've been here before.

And I've said this already, but deflect arrows doesn't cover anybody but yourself. There are feats printed outside the CRB that help protect others, but that doesn't mean the feats are needed to accomplish such a thing, only making it a lot easier to do.

And that's the whole point. It's not stepping on the toes of those with deflect arrows because those guys are a whole lot better at it, regardless of the odds in favor of the action.

And so I'll go back and ask the same question I've asked several times.

What other feats are there that you can just tack extra time onto, and then do it without the feat?

Quicken Spell allows you to cast a spell as a swift action at the cost of a feat and spell levels. This is irrelevant, because by RAW you can always cast a fireball as a standard action.

Further, there are numerous examples of feats that allow you to do actions that you already able to do with less penalties or with bonuses. Improved Disarm allows you to disarm without provoking an AoO. Does that mean you cannot disarm without that feat?

If you think of the readied action requirement as a penalty, how is deflect arrows any different from weapon profiency, improved sunder, improved disarm, or any other feat that removes a penalty to an action that you can already do?

Quote:


Is it some arbitrary determination that makes this one special or can we go through the feats that have a similar format to this one and apply that rule as well?

I have to tell you- I want to be a caster in a campaign wherei can add a day or two to the crafting and make things without the feats. Or the summoner where I can add a round to the casting time and apply the summoning feats to my summons without blowing feats on them.

And I know it may seem like i'm trying to split hairs here, but I'm really not. This is the rules forum. If you are saying its fine by the rules to ignore this feat by adding extra time to accomplish it, then you are saying the rules work that way for every other place like it.

And there are /alot/ of feats that share that format.

-S

There is nothing special about the feat because the feat is irrelevant. Either the RAW allows you to ready an action to attack an arrow or it doesn't.


Selgard wrote:
The problem is that the arrow isn't animated. its an arrow.

I was talking about a dragon's natural attack. Yeah, an arrow is not animated.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
My biggest concern over the most common attempts to support the concept are that they logically would allow attempts to sunder incoming supersonic bullets. Attempting to sunder an incoming arrow is just barely plausible enough that I would probably allow it. But slashing apart fingertip sized hunks of lead moving at 2,000 mph.... This has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. But there is no RAW way to differentiate between a 150mph 18" long arrow and a 2,000mph 1/2" lead slug.

Honestly, I'd screw with the Dexterity of the object.

RAW wrote:
An object's Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier (see Table: Size and Armor Class of Objects) + its Dexterity modifier.

As a house rule, I'd say screw giving it the -2 AC for being inanimate. I mean, the intent for inanimate was mostly for non-living. I add +10 circumstance bonus to the arrow's AC as a balancing act of cool versus plausible. Then I'd give the arrow a Dexterity bonus of 0, and a bullet a dexterity bonus of + 4. Also, a bullet is smaller in size, and gets the full + 8 size modifier.

Arrow AC: 24
Bullet AC: 32

Still, house rulings... not RAW.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
Can I ready an action to deflect the rain, so I do not get wet?:)

Yes, but you can only avoid the first drop. ^.^


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
"Not treated as an object" is not the same thing as "not an object."

At least one poster above would beg to differ.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
He is saying that for the purpose of game mechanics, an incoming arrow is part of the attack, not just an object that can be targeted like an apple on a table.

Which is exactly why I said my personal ruling would involve comparing it to the archer's CMD rather than the static AC "of an apple on a table).


I attack the darkness!!!

I readied an action, so I can!


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

I attack the darkness!!!

I readied an action, so I can!

Except the darkness isn't an object! :P

(Gotta love Dead Ale Wives.)


ImperatorK wrote:

I attack the darkness!!!

I readied an action, so I can!

You're not there you're getting drunk!

Seriously though, you can attack any square with total concealment and still have a 50% chance that you'll hit what's there. ^.^


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
GrenMeera wrote:
Seriously though, you can attack any square with total concealment and still have a 50% chance that you'll hit what's there. ^.^

Good point.


Let me know when you guys stop strawmaning my posts. Until then, I'm out. Peace!


ImperatorK wrote:
Let me know when you guys stop strawmaning my posts. Until then, I'm out. Peace!

Your "point" was sarcasm and wasn't a point at all. You can't "straw-man" useless sarcasm.

The best thing you can do is treat it like it's not sarcasm, because the sarcastic individual never had any further plans than a blanket statement and can't retort.

In ALL arguments, and at ANY time, I can just take an extreme example of something and made it seem ludicrous with sarcasm. The problem is, it's not actually meaningful to anybody.

Ravingdork wrote:
Good point.

Wow... My Little Ponies version... that one is new to me!


ImperatorK wrote:
Let me know when you guys stop strawmaning my posts. Until then, I'm out. Peace!

Actually, looking at the reasoning and definitions of the term "straw man" here you can say that your sarcastic retort about attacking the darkness was in fact reasoning 2.5 - "Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version."

Mentioning the idea of attacking the darkness in disdain was an oversimplification of the issues at hand.


GrenMeera wrote:
ImperatorK wrote:
Let me know when you guys stop strawmaning my posts. Until then, I'm out. Peace!
Your "point" was sarcasm and wasn't a point at all. You can't "straw-man" useless sarcasm.

The point was sarcasm, but wasn't treated for the purposes of the post/situation. Otherwise the Needlessly Antagonistic feat would be useless.


GrenMeera wrote:
ImperatorK wrote:
Let me know when you guys stop strawmaning my posts. Until then, I'm out. Peace!

Actually, looking at the reasoning and definitions of the term "straw man" here you can say that your sarcastic retort about attacking the darkness was in fact reasoning 2.5 - "Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version."

Mentioning the idea of attacking the darkness in disdain was an oversimplification of the issues at hand.

I wasn't talking about my "I attack the darkness!" post. >.>


ImperatorK wrote:
I wasn't talking about my "I attack the darkness!" post. >.>

Well my apologies on misunderstanding then. It was your most previous post after all.

I don't quite see the "straw-man" arguments against your other post either, but if there was an accidental insult to that post's validity by me, it was unintended.


Charender wrote:
Selgard wrote:
Swivl wrote:
Selgard wrote:

No need to try again. I just fall back to what I've been saying all along.

/go back to the feat/. Its what its there for.

You are splitting hairs for nothing. Nobody is interested in getting around the feat, and we've already pointed it out how it doesn't, in fact, do such a thing.

Fighting defensively doesn't replace combat expertise and so on, we've been here before.

And I've said this already, but deflect arrows doesn't cover anybody but yourself. There are feats printed outside the CRB that help protect others, but that doesn't mean the feats are needed to accomplish such a thing, only making it a lot easier to do.

And that's the whole point. It's not stepping on the toes of those with deflect arrows because those guys are a whole lot better at it, regardless of the odds in favor of the action.

And so I'll go back and ask the same question I've asked several times.

What other feats are there that you can just tack extra time onto, and then do it without the feat?

Quicken Spell allows you to cast a spell as a swift action at the cost of a feat and spell levels. This is irrelevant, because by RAW you can always cast a fireball as a standard action.

Further, there are numerous examples of feats that allow you to do actions that you already able to do with less penalties or with bonuses. Improved Disarm allows you to disarm without provoking an AoO. Does that mean you cannot disarm without that feat?

If you think of the readied action requirement as a penalty, how is deflect arrows any different from weapon profiency, improved sunder, improved disarm, or any other feat that removes a penalty to an action that you can already do?

Quote:


Is it some arbitrary determination that makes this one special or can we go through the feats that have a similar format to this one and apply that rule as well?

I have to tell you- I want to be a caster in a campaign wherei can add a day or two to the crafting

...

The difference between wep proficiency is that you /can/ wield it without the feat. You just take a penalty. Its right there in the feat, description. I already posted about this.

Feats are either listed with a /normally/ clause(when you can do what the feat describes anyway but with some listed penalty or without some effect or whatever the feat grants).
Or they are listed without the "Normally" line.
The distinction is rather simple.
Feats that allow you to do something that you can't do at all without the feat don't have a normally line. Because it'd say "Normally you can't do this without the feat". It'd be wasted print.

They dont need to write at the end of Quicken spell "Normally you can't cast a spell as a swift action by adding spell levels to the spell" because.. magic doesn't work that way. Its self evident. Without the feat, *you can not do the described action*.
You can't add Maximize to a spell and cast it as a full round action to avoid the feat. You can't add a round to Summon Monster IV and tack Augment Summoning on it, and avoid the feat (and the annoying preq).

Why not? Because without the feat your character lacks the ability to utilize what that feat gives you.

And the Deflect Arrow line is the exact same way. Why?
Because without the feat you can not do it.
There is no
"Normally you can do this as a standard action using the Sunder rules"
or "normally its a free action but you have to roll AC 13"
Why?
Because /normally you can not do that action at all/. The feat grants the ability to do it.

We have Breaking and Entering rules (AC 10 to hit the arrow) with a sunder attempt that provokes an AOO against /the target/ (the arrow) which is perposterous (arrows can't take AoO's- they aren't even creatures). The B&E rules direct you to a rule that says you can only sunder something wielded by a creature. (which an arrow, by its very definition, is not).
Or you can treat it just like an object (rather than a weapon) which gives it an AC 10 and an HP rating so low a mosquito could bench press it (hard to say exactly since the object rules list wood in increments of 10 inches of thickness, unless there is a specific arrow-hp/hardness rule i can't find).

You can almost kinda sorta get there with the arrow stuff but not quite.
If you rule its an unattended object the rule gets so stupid so quickly it can't possibly be the rule as intended. (it becomes as easy to break an arrow in flight as it does to break one that's sitting on the floor in front of you) or you rule its attended and try to figure out how the arrow gets an AoO against you. (unless you have Imp Sunder- but you still have to figure out how it works for the cases where the "attacker" lacks the feat) and even then you are applying the CMD of someone potentially hundreds of feet away to attack an object moving some thousand feet per second..

Whichever way you go with it you have to apply rules that clearly weren't intended for it. You have to houserule either direction. Pick your favorite and go with it, and work out the kinks.

Or face the fact that its most closely covered by the feat, and the feat is the appropriate rule to follow. (even though that STILL requires house ruling, because you want to break the arrow not deflect it. but deflect vs break is really just a fluff distinction since the arrow busts when hitting someone- and either way, the arrow is hitting something).

Clearly the feat isn't perfect. there should be some room inbetween "free action" and "automatic success". But absent some house rules there just isn't. You have to bend the rules so far to come to some resolution that you aren't even on the Rules Forum anymore- but the Advice or Houserules forum...

-S


GrenMeera wrote:
ImperatorK wrote:
I wasn't talking about my "I attack the darkness!" post. >.>

Well my apologies on misunderstanding then. It was your most previous post after all.

I don't quite see the "straw-man" arguments against your other post either, but if there was an accidental insult to that post's validity by me, it was unintended.

I guess what he means is that either the arrow is on the person or already shot, and no mid-flight to speak of since the game doesn't seem to have any abstraction for it.

Which is a fine ruling to make, but one I wouldn't make myself.


Ok am gonna come at this from a different direction- not because I think its right, but because.. well, I wanna work it out.

The question is "can you ready an action vs an arrow flying at you, and sunder/knock it out of the sky". Ok.
The question has also been posited that if you can RaA to attack someone's sword then yuo can also do so to attack their arrow in flight.

So- is there any difference in this?

if Bob the Barbarian and Roger the Ranger are fighting each other:

RR can, if he's within melee range of BB, just flat out sunder his weapon. I think everyone agrees with this.
He can heft his great sword and attack BB's great axe, making the appropriate checks vs the CMD and all that jazz. Success depends on hitting it, getting through hardness, and all that.

In fact- sundering /anything/ BB is wielding is essentially resolved in the exact same fashion. They close to melee, you attack their (item), and go on.

Now:
Can RR ready an action to attack BB's Axe if BB gets in range?
I think so.
He can ready an action to attack (specifically allowed) and you can swap a sunder attempt for a melee attack (specifically allowed).
So AA readies an attack, BB closes to melee, AA attacks his weapon, its resolved normally. If its destroyed, BB is hosed. (or can draw another weapon, fight bare handed, whatever) and if the weap isn' destroyed BB gets Chopped Andy for the cookpot.

Whether we like this rule or not, it seems to be fairly clear in the rules that this is possible.

Now:
The ready an action rules seem clear that you can ready an action to sunder something or attack someone.
But what does sunder say about attacking the object? This is where things get bizarre.

If you go straight to the Sunder rules- its impossible to do. Flat out.
Sunder requires you to attack something wielded by an opponent. Right outta the box, the answer is NO.
"You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent.. " very first sentence. (edited for relevancy).
An arrow in flight is neither wielded or worn by your opponent.

But, its not a slam dunk.
If you go to the rules about unattended objects (named Breaking and Entering) it says:
"Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Combat)."
I did not edit that sentence. At all. Straight outta the PRD.

So sundering a weapon or shield requires you to use the Sunder rules, which say you can't do it but its not worn or wielded so you come back to these rules and.. Ok you see the problem.
The problem is that, the /rules do not answer the question/. They actually send you into a never ending rules loop. The only way out of the rules loop is to:
1) treat it as though its wielded.
2) treat the arrow as though it isn't a weapon.

so lets explore 1.
1) If its wielded: the defender gets an AoO if you don't have the feat (err arrow stabs you as you swing at it? wth?) and you use the defender's CMB to try and defeat the attempt.
I think most folks would agree though that this is clearly a houserule situation. Why? Because the arrow, when its close enough to hit you, is no longer wielded by the defender.

Ok, so 2)
2 is supposed to work for things that aren't wielded- but its also /specifically/ not supposed to work against weapons or armor either. In fact- nowhere in the "Smashing an Object" subheading does it reference it being unattended *at all*.
It just says if its a weapon or armor, use the sunder rules. Otherwise, use these rules.

Spoiler:
It leads to an oddity where technically speaking there are two sets of very different rules for attacking an object that isn't a weapon or shield. You can choose either the (extremely easy) rules for just smashing an object, or the (much more difficult) sundering rules. Go figure. (yes, I think its sunder for attended/worn objects and "smashing" for the other.. but it'd have been nice to see a sentence to that effect somewhere).

But back on track here- if we assume the arrow isn't a weapon but is instead an object that isn't wielded or worn by someone to defend it then what do you have?
You have an AC 10 object to attack an object that probably has no hardness at all (at 5 H for every 10 inches of thickness) and most likely fewer HP (or at least as many) as 1" of rope. or 2. TWO hp. If you really wanted to be generous you could give it as much as 5- but that would be as much /as a length of chain/.
So assuming this even works at all, you have an arrow in flight with an AC of 10 and a hardness of zip with 5 hp on a good day with the blessing of the Arrow gods on it to give it just that much HP.
This means that a 1st level commoner wielding the one simple weapon he knows how to, with an average ability modifier of 0, can *hit* the arrow 50% of the time. (though granted, he will most likely not obliterate it). If he can do a whole 3 points of damage to it though it takes a further -2 to hit. However, if it has its actual likely 1 or 2 HP then he can almost certainly break it if not destroy it out right, thus taking no damage at all.

This is an arrow fired by the most accurate archer ever to grace Golarion with absolutely perfect conditions, against Farmer Frank wielding his trusty hoe. All he has to do is invoke the magic words "I ready an action to attack the arrow" and he has a 50/50 shot of winning the day.

Keep in mind, this is all assuming the arrow isn't a weapon.

So you have:
Pretend a flying arrow is wielded vs pretend the flying arrow isn't a weapon.

Either way you are slamming on the ole House Rule sticker and praying for the best because in order for either to work you /have/ to declare the arrow to be something that it clearly isn't.
It Is Not wielded and it Is a weapon.

-S


The path of least resistance of course. Which method makes the most sense within the rules and go from there.

251 to 300 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.