Readying Attack vs. Arrows


Rules Questions

351 to 400 of 413 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Ravingdork wrote:

How is attempting to perform an inspiring maneuver a waste of ANYONE's time, AD? I'd think it would promote more cool ideas and fun actions at the gaming table.

Are all your players limited to charge, full attack full attack, lest they be considered to be "wasting their GM's time?

I've agreed with a great deal of your posts as of late, but not this one.

LOL, I was being snarky RD. I should have put a :) at the end.

However, there's a grain of truth to it. Most GMs have had that one player who constantly comes up with "fun" things that "would just be so cool" but that really end up wasting people's time when there is no real reason for it, no real benefit from it, and it just makes the GM struggle to maintain balance in the game.

This particular example doesn't fit that category, but some things do.


Jodokai wrote:
Actually, if you read what's going on, even the people that think it should be allowed say it will break the game if you do it by RAW and give the arrow a 13 AC.

Oh, I completely agree with you. I was merely saying that the sentence "This can't happen by RAW" is incorrect. A tangible solution, which is to fix the unrealistic nature of the AC, is a separate issue.

Identifying a problem and ascertaining a solution are two separate things, and my focus was entirely on the false assumptions when identifying the problem. Your breakdown of solutions is very clear and concise! I am curious to see what Swivl has to add to this list.

I would however, change number 2:
2. Accept that the rules weren't intended this way, and use house rule to allow it.

This is why one side is arguing number 1, and the other side is countering number 1 with number 3, but still trying to promote number 2.

Jodokai wrote:
which your previous post about Dave Arneson implies is a bad idea

Actually, with what little I came to know of Dave, and what I meant myself, this is the opposite. The point is that a system benefits from a simple, direct, and non-verbose written rule set. However, conveying intent is simply more important. To me, RAW is meaningless compared to RAI.

In a perfect design, you don't need to tell the players what to do, they just know what to do anyway, or can "house rule" it. If house rules are created easily, and players all over the world come up with similar rules without being told, you have made a flexible and grand design.

For example, in the perfect design of Rock, Paper, Scissors: It's a house rule to determine if it's "1-2-3-Shoot!", or "1-2-Shoot!". This game is played in many countries and in many languages, and even has more than one historical source. However, somehow the world over decided upon a countdown timing method without ever conversing this idea through language barriers.


I guess my view is you can allow players to re-flavor anything they want.

GM: Okay you're surrounded by Archers, "Surrender!" they shout
Player: I give them a an evil grin draw a circle in the sand and give them the Morpheous, come get some, hand gesture. When the arrows come in I knock them away with my sword.
GM: Ooo impressive, do you have the Deflect Arrows feat?
Player: No.
GM: Okay. *GM makes some rolls adding 4 to Player's AC for the Total Defense.* You stand in the middle of all the archers sword flashing knocking the arrows aside, the smile never leaving your face. If you want, that would be a heck of an intimidate bonus.

Didn't the player get to do exactly what he wanted? Didn't it "look" cool? Didn't it follow every rule? Shouldn't everyone be happy here?


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

Jodokai, I certainly would be.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

That's awesome logical way to handle it Jodokai. I so wish I thought of this.


Hey! It's the same thing I was talking about!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Oooh, sorry, missed that.


And it even was my very first post in this thread. :(


I'm also on the bandwagon for using Total Defense and I have been for awhile.

However, to give credit where credit is due, the first person to mention this idea was Selgard on page two. ^.^

I do like your description Jodokai, and offering a real-time example I think made people understand this option more thoroughly.


Yeah, he did. Now I feel useless. :(


I think all of the "let's find a way to make it happen within the rules" suggestions have been fine. In the situation Jodokai described, I like the total defense solution. However, if it were a single arrow of doom, I would probably go with either of the other options proposed, either the attempt to attack the incoming arrow, or the attempt to use a dex or reflex check to deflect it.

However, it would still be pretty difficult to accomplish on a single arrow defense approach.


GrenMeera wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
THE RULES DO NOT EVEN REMOTELY SUGGEST THAT YOU DO!
I think you failed to understand the point of that post. It was identifying the fact that sometimes you say this very thing, and other times you say "THE RULES DO NOT EVEN REMOTELY SUGGEST THAT YOU DON'T"!

Really? Could you kindly point them out to me? I should like to amend these arguments. I dislike using that particular argument, the rules are a list of things you can do, not things you can't. If the rules don't say you can do something, more often then not you can't, or it doesn't matter (such as the case of keeping your heart beating, there's no rules because it doesn't matter.)

Quote:


Quantum Steve wrote:
The rules don't even begin to back any of this up, you're just saying "I think you should be able to, so you can."
This is an assumption of yours. This thread has gone on for 346 posts because there ARE interpretations of the rules that say that this is a perfectly valid action by RAW. You may disagree, and that's fine. I just see no reason to claim that the rules are clear when this thread has essentially proved by sampling that it's not.

Yeah, I would seem I've gotten so tired of reiterating the same point over and over, that no one can seem to adequately refute, I've degenerated into "I Say, You Say"

So, here it is again: You can't sunder an arrow in flight because you can't interact with the arrow as an object.

It would be a stretch to call an arrow still wielded by the archer, but even if you did, you could not sunder it unless you threatened the archer.

If you could interact with the arrow as an unattended object, then you can interact with the arrow in every way you could interact with any other unattended object. You can't just pick and choose rich rules you follow.

Now that I think about, I guess you are correct, yours is definitely an interpretation of RAW. But let me pose this question. Why bother with determining the AC of the arrow, since, by your interpretation, you could ready an action to pick up the arrow?


GrenMeera wrote:
Selgard wrote:
So yeah, making sure exactly what the rules are is a very important part of the game.

An interesting side note to this:

Dave Arneson once told me that the more rules you create, the more impossible game balance and play becomes. He claimed that Rock, Paper, Scissors is still the ultimate example of perfect game design.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but it's dangerous to open a can of worms stating that everybody should have the same understanding of a rule system that is meant to replicate an entire universe. This generalization works at upper levels, but can spiral down a dark path into the abyss of "nuance".

I don't disagree.

But even if you and I hash the rule out up one way and down the other and come to different conclusions, at least we're both- at minimum- educated as to the other side of the argument.

So if we do feel the need to houserule it one way or another, we have a better grasp of the entire issue.

More rules can be bad- but sometimes you need a rule. Even if your rule is only to say "this rule works X way not Y way".

-S


Quantum Steve wrote:
Now that I think about, I guess you are correct, yours is definitely an interpretation of RAW. But let me pose this question. Why bother with determining the AC of the arrow, since, by your interpretation, you could ready an action to pick up the arrow?

Well it is rather obvious is it not taking as you say the hypothetical that you agree with the stance put forth by your opposition. Picking up an item provokes an attack of opportunity.


Quantum Steve wrote:
Why bother with determining the AC of the arrow, since, by your interpretation, you could ready an action to pick up the arrow?

Exactly! This is available by RAW, but it has some niggling flaws that spread to other areas. The RAW seems to make it available to "pick up" an arrow in flight as well. This doesn't seem like the intent.

This is why I prefer the Total Defense fluff instead.

I just generally like keeping people in an understanding that they are discussion opinions and not facts.

Selgard wrote:
But even if you and I hash the rule out up one way and down the other and come to different conclusions, at least we're both- at minimum- educated as to the other side of the argument.

I like this statement! Good poise and good point.


GrenMeera, I fell asleep, and the discussion has moved on. Actually, on to what I was thinking while reading the thread much earlier: both sides of this are actually quite aware of the other perspective by now.

I don't think my position has changed, but it's across a couple of pages, so I'll sum up: I like total defense, and I would use that instead entirely were it not for the idea of protecting someone else, where something like sundering an arrow makes more sense to do, despite its RAW-grey-area-ness.


Swivl wrote:
I don't think my position has changed, but it's across a couple of pages, so I'll sum up: I like total defense, and I would use that instead entirely were it not for the idea of protecting someone else, where something like sundering an arrow makes more sense to do, despite its RAW-grey-area-ness.

5-ft. step as part of readied action to total defense?

Bodyguard?


ImperatorK wrote:
Swivl wrote:
I don't think my position has changed, but it's across a couple of pages, so I'll sum up: I like total defense, and I would use that instead entirely were it not for the idea of protecting someone else, where something like sundering an arrow makes more sense to do, despite its RAW-grey-area-ness.

5-ft. step as part of readied action to total defense?

Bodyguard?

Yes, stepping in the way was something I assumed would be part of any action, sunder or aid or total defense or what have you.

Bodyguard does help the action economy of aid another nicely to be quite viable (side note: my last monk had this feat).

Since we're reflavoring, I imagine the action in question would become aid another and just look awesome. But here's the crazy part: even if all that ties it up nicely, we still don't know if the action is possible.

That's how crazy this has become. We know of many solutions to the same problem, but we don't know if this is one of them.


GrenMeera wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
Why bother with determining the AC of the arrow, since, by your interpretation, you could ready an action to pick up the arrow?

Exactly! This is available by RAW, but it has some niggling flaws that spread to other areas. The RAW seems to make it available to "pick up" an arrow in flight as well. This doesn't seem like the intent.

This is why I prefer the Total Defense fluff instead.

I just generally like keeping people in an understanding that they are discussion opinions and not facts.

Selgard wrote:
But even if you and I hash the rule out up one way and down the other and come to different conclusions, at least we're both- at minimum- educated as to the other side of the argument.
I like this statement! Good poise and good point.

So wait, now you say you can't ready an action to attack an arrow, you just use AC like everyone else?

Amazing! It would seem we are in perfect agreement!

As to the difference between fact and opinion, one could make the argument that there are no facts, only personal interpretations of RAW. (One could make a similar argument about all perceptions, but I fell asleep that day in Philosophy, so I will mention it no further ;)

Any arguments of RAW are inherently arguments of interpretation, which are really just opinions. Since you can't really argue facts on this board, it's rather useless to differentiate between fact and opinion, at least I think so.


If the rules are a list of what you can do, rather than what you cant, then theres no way to take a piss.


stringburka wrote:
If the rules are a list of what you can do, rather than what you cant, then theres no way to take a piss.

Who said you need to piss?


Also, grass isnt green, you dont have teeth and there is no indication elves possess heads.


Quantum Steve wrote:
So wait, now you say you can't ready an action to attack an arrow, you just use AC like everyone else?

No, I'm saying you CAN ready an attack against an arrow. That doesn't mean I'd let it slide, as is, as a GM myself. I would not allow it as a low AC and would house rule an AC to 24 minimum.

Also, I'd advise my players to using Total Defense nevertheless. I may actually simply say that you can declare your +4 dodge bonus to AC for Total Defense as a deflection bonus if they choose to do so, thereby crippling themselves for no real reason since deflection doesn't stack as easily.

But what you CAN do from RAW and what I WOULD do as a GM are different. So I am not saying that you can't ready an action to attack an arrow.

I've been debating for the sake of possibility, not for what I myself would do.

On a side note, and not applicable to this, I find that you learn a lot more if you debate for a side you don't actually want to win.

Quantum Steve wrote:
Any arguments of RAW are inherently arguments of interpretation, which are really just opinions. Since you can't really argue facts on this board, it's rather useless to differentiate between fact and opinion, at least I think so.

Logically, I see your point. The difference is irrelevant if all parties involved are looking at each argument from a practicality standpoint only. However, it's more of an emotion response issue to me. When people understand that it's all about opinions, they're more likely to respect another outlook and remain civil.

If I can keep people in an understanding that all parties can both be right, then it becomes less of a defensive argument of pride and more of a respectful debate about preference, which this is.


stringburka wrote:
Also, grass isnt green,

You're right, grass doesn't have to be green, it's your world make it whatever color you want.

stringburka wrote:
you dont have teeth

You don't have to have teeth, my character has teeth.

stringburka wrote:
and there is no indication elves possess heads.

There is a lot of indication that they do. They are described as tall humanoids, and compared to humans.


stringburka wrote:
you dont have teeth

I'm gonna take some liberties and say my character has teeth, otherwise that bite attack is more silly than anticipated.

Dark Archive

GrenMeera wrote:
stringburka wrote:
you dont have teeth
I'm gonna take some liberties and say my character has teeth, otherwise that bite attack is more silly than anticipated.

Gums of DOOOOM!!!


Happler wrote:
GrenMeera wrote:
stringburka wrote:
you dont have teeth
I'm gonna take some liberties and say my character has teeth, otherwise that bite attack is more silly than anticipated.
Gums of DOOOOM!!!

Maybe a beak.


Sorry I've been away for a bit (sick kid).

So I guess the impasse is here on the actualality of doing this within the rules frameworks. I've covered how I would handle it if it came up and I have no issue with a DM ruling in other directions. I would still like to see what the Devs would say since of course as Swivl pointed out such a readied action could also be more of a protect the other guy kinda thing.

@Jodokai Your example was wonderful and exactly what I would want from a DM under such circumstances.


stringburka wrote:
If the rules are a list of what you can do, rather than what you cant, then theres no way to take a piss.

Taking a piss is pretty inconsequential as for a game interaction is concerned. There don't need to be rules for taking a piss because it doesn't matter.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Quantum Steve wrote:
stringburka wrote:
If the rules are a list of what you can do, rather than what you cant, then theres no way to take a piss.

Taking a piss is pretty inconsequential as for a game interaction is concerned. There don't need to be rules for taking a piss because it doesn't matter.

Unless you piss on your enemies during combat.


Talonhawke wrote:

Sorry I've been away for a bit (sick kid).

So I guess the impasse is here on the actualality of doing this within the rules frameworks. I've covered how I would handle it if it came up and I have no issue with a DM ruling in other directions. I would still like to see what the Devs would say since of course as Swivl pointed out such a readied action could also be more of a protect the other guy kinda thing.

@Jodokai Your example was wonderful and exactly what I would want from a DM under such circumstances.

My prediction of what the developers would say:

"A rule book can only be so long, and some actions do not get specific rules. We did not think to make a rule for readying an action to knock an arrow out of the air, in-flight. So, in PFS play, doing so would be illegal. At my own gaming table, I would either make it an attack with an appropriately large circumstance bonus to AC, or a sunder attempt, likewise with an appropriately large circumstance bonus to CMD."

Carnac the Magnificent has spoken.

"May your Perrier water be secretly bottled in Tijuana."


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
stringburka wrote:
If the rules are a list of what you can do, rather than what you cant, then theres no way to take a piss.

Taking a piss is pretty inconsequential as for a game interaction is concerned. There don't need to be rules for taking a piss because it doesn't matter.

Unless you piss on your enemies during combat.

Since that would have no mechanical effect, it's of no consequence.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Quantum Steve wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
stringburka wrote:
If the rules are a list of what you can do, rather than what you cant, then theres no way to take a piss.

Taking a piss is pretty inconsequential as for a game interaction is concerned. There don't need to be rules for taking a piss because it doesn't matter.

Unless you piss on your enemies during combat.
Since that would have no mechanical effect, it's of no consequence.

Not if you pissed in their eyes.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
stringburka wrote:
If the rules are a list of what you can do, rather than what you cant, then theres no way to take a piss.

Taking a piss is pretty inconsequential as for a game interaction is concerned. There don't need to be rules for taking a piss because it doesn't matter.

Unless you piss on your enemies during combat.
Since that would have no mechanical effect, it's of no consequence.
Not if you pissed in their eyes.

You need improved dirty trick or you provoke bbt.


Talonhawke wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
stringburka wrote:
If the rules are a list of what you can do, rather than what you cant, then theres no way to take a piss.

Taking a piss is pretty inconsequential as for a game interaction is concerned. There don't need to be rules for taking a piss because it doesn't matter.

Unless you piss on your enemies during combat.
Since that would have no mechanical effect, it's of no consequence.
Not if you pissed in their eyes.
You need improved dirty trick or you provoke bbt.

Good call. There's rules for taking a piss only when it matters.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

There is no lack of silliness on this thread. I like it. I don't like the "you're a doody head" and "no, you're a doody head" comments.
By the way,
flavor should bend to cover RAW, RAW shouldn't bend to cover flavor.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

+

There is no lack of silliness on this thread. I like it. I don't like the "you're a doody head" and "no, you're a doody head" comments.

Curses! Just when I was about to call somebody a doody head too!

Quantum Steve wrote:
Good call. There's rules for taking a piss only when it matters.

Actually I've had more than one time when taking a piss has altered game-play.

The long and short of it (my player would have a lot of distaste for using that turn of phrase) is that taking a piss when you're on watch is a great time to ambush.

Everything can come up as important. I'm not of the mindset to dismiss something just because I can't see it's uses and I'm never of the mindset to tell my players that they can't do something just because I can't figure out how to let them.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Damn my players making me come to this forum to check on another post. I've been reading all the fun threads all night but none are as epic as this so far!

Lots of great points but I think the original intention was for it to be covered under the total defense and similar actions/feats as people stated ad nauseam earlier.

As far as a readied action, it states clearly that the readied action takes place before the action that triggered it occurs.

So you could not knock the arrow out mid flight just like how you cannot knock out a fireball mid flight.

Could you block it with a readied action by casting Wall of "name your element here"? Sure.

Can you attempt to disrupt the spellcaster? Sure.

"Closing the door as the archer fires" as someone stated earlier with a readied action? Sure.

People can have house rules and do whatever they want. But the slippery slope such a precedent can create will probably lead someplace dark and time consuming as it is applied on other ways not originally intended.

Kudos to the last example of total defense. As far as some examples of Aragorn knocking away the knife mid flight, it's perfectly explained under combat expertise or total defense. Just as AC represents a blend of luck, dodging and armor and HP's don't represent things actually hitting you and causing physical damage with each one lost. It's all about the presentation.

As someone said earlier, if you must put it within the scope of the rules, if the total defense maneuver bonus on top of the AC is what caused the arrow to miss, then why not say "You deftly swat the arrow to the side with your defensive parries".

Pick your poison.

Now snatching a potion out of mid air tossed between two enemies, that's the topic of another whole discussion. :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You can also level up, by taking a dump.

Dark Archive

My only problem with the total defense route is this.

a peasant in leather armor with a dex of 14 would have the exact same chance to "block" arrows with total defense as a fighter with the same leather armor and a 14 dex.

It does not take the defenders skill into the equation at all, only the archers, and the dex and AC of the defender. We are back to the "Any peon can try that and have the same chances.

The only thing that can effect the bonus for a total defense (that I know of right now) is having 3+ ranks of acrobatics.

Quote:
Special: If you have 3 or more ranks in Acrobatics, you gain a +3 dodge bonus to AC when fighting defensively instead of the usual +2, and a +6 dodge bonus to AC when taking the total defense action instead of the usual +4.

So, now we have the acrobatic character having a better chance then the swordsman.


I like that the discussion in this thread has gone so well and I thank you for all your input!

As of now, I've decided that this information actually would need to have Dev interference for a proper sorting of RAW. From a house-rule perspective I've decided it's going to be a Sunder vs. the archers CMD.

While archers tend to have low CMDs, the defenses that his arrows have vs. the damage (namely +2 hardness and +10 HP per +1 of the bow firing) will make up for this. Should the character successfully sunder yet not deal enough damage to destroy it, the arrow will still be said to have shattered against his blade but the shrapnel continued forward to hit him.

Thanks, everyone! Please don't end the discussion on my account!


I wouldn't allow it for a couple of reasons. It makes no sense that someone could catch arrows without training and there is next to no reason why you would want to attempt to waste your time catching arrows when five others are coming at you.


Black_Lantern wrote:
I wouldn't allow it for a couple of reasons. It makes no sense that someone could catch arrows without training and there is next to no reason why you would want to attempt to waste your time catching arrows when five others are coming at you.

You haven't read much of this thread, have you?


Unanas wrote:
Black_Lantern wrote:
I wouldn't allow it for a couple of reasons. It makes no sense that someone could catch arrows without training and there is next to no reason why you would want to attempt to waste your time catching arrows when five others are coming at you.
You haven't read much of this thread, have you?

I don't care to considering how long and drawn out a pointless discussion it is.


Then why even bother to stop by and comment?


Happler wrote:

My only problem with the total defense route is this.

a peasant in leather armor with a dex of 14 would have the exact same chance to "block" arrows with total defense as a fighter with the same leather armor and a 14 dex.

It does not take the defenders skill into the equation at all, only the archers, and the dex and AC of the defender. We are back to the "Any peon can try that and have the same chances.

The only thing that can effect the bonus for a total defense (that I know of right now) is having 3+ ranks of acrobatics.

Quote:
Special: If you have 3 or more ranks in Acrobatics, you gain a +3 dodge bonus to AC when fighting defensively instead of the usual +2, and a +6 dodge bonus to AC when taking the total defense action instead of the usual +4.
So, now we have the acrobatic character having a better chance then the swordsman.

Right because really, how much sense does it make for someone with quick reflexes to be better at blocking arrows that a hulking behemoth? o_O

Dark Archive

Jodokai wrote:
Happler wrote:

My only problem with the total defense route is this.

a peasant in leather armor with a dex of 14 would have the exact same chance to "block" arrows with total defense as a fighter with the same leather armor and a 14 dex.

It does not take the defenders skill into the equation at all, only the archers, and the dex and AC of the defender. We are back to the "Any peon can try that and have the same chances.

The only thing that can effect the bonus for a total defense (that I know of right now) is having 3+ ranks of acrobatics.

Quote:
Special: If you have 3 or more ranks in Acrobatics, you gain a +3 dodge bonus to AC when fighting defensively instead of the usual +2, and a +6 dodge bonus to AC when taking the total defense action instead of the usual +4.
So, now we have the acrobatic character having a better chance then the swordsman.
Right because really, how much sense does it make for someone with quick reflexes to be better at blocking arrows that a hulking behemoth? o_O

How much sense does it make to have a level 3 commoner in leather and a dex of 14 have the same exact chance for knocking an arrow from the air as a level 15 fighter with the same armor and dex? The fighters BAB never comes into the calculations, so it does not matter. You have given them both the same chance and skill does not matter.

the only way to alter the bonus of total defense is to have at least 3 ranks of acrobatics.

At least with the CMB/CMD idea, the ability of the fighter to hit things matters.


A leveled commoner with a lot of Dex (and yes, I consider anything above 10-11 a high stat for a commoner) in armor is already a fairly odd and extraordinary thing. Sounds like he's a half step away from being a mercenary or a bandit and all of a sudden it starts sounding normal again.

Also, a level 15 fighter has armor training.

So an extraordinary commoner being still worse than a level 15 fighter is believable.

I do see your point though. It's "fluff" for total defense, but I'd probably never apply that fluff to a commoner.

Granted, as a GM I change the rules for weird circumstances all the time because that's what GMs sometimes do. Hypocritical to the poor commoner? Yes. I don't mind giving a different house ruling to a commoner though.

I even toyed with the idea of disallowing my "fluff" for any character without a high Dex just because.

The Dwarf in full plate gets arrows bouncing off him, the rogue gets arrow deflection. All in making the fluff work for you.


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

Wow. 400 posts on this.


Yeah RD sometimes it just keeps going.

351 to 400 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.