So I have a question involving how to resolve using certain combat maneuvers as readied action.
Let's say we have Brainy the Magus vs Brawny the Barbarian. Brainy sees Brawny within walking distance. He knows Brawny has it out for him, and he's all pumped up and ragey. A scuffle is imminent. Brainy is also all out of spells, and has few options. So, Brainy readies an action so that if Brawny attacks him he is going to instead try to disarm Brawny. Of course, Brawny does the sensible Barbarian thing and charges the heck out of Brainy's face.
My question is this: Brawny reaches Brainy and tries to cleave him in twain. That triggers Brainy's prepared action to instead swing his sword at Brawny's big ol' axe in an attempt to disarm him.
Brainy doesn't have improved disarm, so a disarm attempt (even a readied one) normally provokes an AoO. However, the action that triggered his disarm is an attack, meaning that he is trying to disarm Brawny while he is already attacking.
If Brawny DOES get an AoO (which is the strictest as-written interpretation of the rules), that means that what he's effectively doing is attacking, and since Brainy is trying to whack his weapon, he gets to use that weapon to whack Brainy BEFORE the attack he was initially trying to make. He is attacking before he's attacking, which is some messed-up quantum jibba-jabba. Furthermore, since Brainy's attack is readied against an attack, the attack of opportunity itself would seem to trigger the readied action, causing an infinite regress. Even if we want to say that the readied action happens before the attack of the charge, it still doesn't quite seem quite right that Brawny can take an Attack of Opportunity mid-charge (or run in, stop, make an oppotunistic attack, then finish the attack he was making to begin with).
Does it seem more fair to resolve such situations as Brawny getting two attacks on a charge (his normal one, and the AoO), or does it make sense that given the nature of the readied action and the triggering conditions that the AoO that would otherwise be there is ignored? Is there maybe a third option that would better fit the situation?
Brawny gets an AoO. There is no "infinite regress" because Brainy can only Ready one action, and it has already been triggered and declared.
So it would play out like this.
Actions Declared.
Brainy-Ready
Brawny-Charge
Brainy-Disarm
Brawny-AoO
But Action Resolution like this.
Brawny-Charge movement
Brawny-AoO
Brainy-Disarm
Brawny-Charge attack (note even if disarmed he could attack unarmed, though possibly granting Brainy an AoO for doing so)
Yes, he still provokes an AoO for attempting to disarm without possessing Improved Disarm. That's just how the game functions.
These sorts of situations are why I think readied action rules are terrible and need to be adjusted.
Whats worse is if the barbarian has Come and Get Me, and most will as soon as they can. If that's the case you will never get to strike the barbarian before he strikes you unless you have more AoO per round that you can make then he does and the barbarian provokes each time he trikes to attack you.
The answer is, don't attempt to disarm without Improved Disarm.
Otherwise the Barb gets AoO and charge attack, Magus gets readied action. Thats just how it happens.
"that's just how it would play out" seems to be a highly dissatisfactory answer in a game where we are describing a series of events in a story, not a sequence of logic problems. I'm not looking for a "that's what the rules say" answer because I am dissatisfied with what the rules say. I'm looking for an in-world justification for why it should work in a certain way. The rules should describe the way stuff in the game world happens. The game world should not describe the way the rules happen.
I'm not looking for a "that's what the rules say" answer because I am dissatisfied with what the rules say. I'm looking for an in-world justification for why it should work in a certain way.
Then what are you doing in the Rules Forum ?
Why shouldn't Brawny get his AoO ? Be wary of making Readied Actions too powerful. See also threads like this one.
|
Woooah, hold on there. Your the one giving it a series of story event meanings and so forth. The game is just that, a game. It isn't attempting to be a life simulator. It is just a tool for facilitating something for you and your friends to enjoy playing. Five foot cubes roaming about with ability X and damage capability Y.
Now the game is certainly more equipped to handle or encourage sweeping narrative then say Monopoly, but at the end of the day its still a game.
Of course as it is a game it can be changed how you and the others playing it see fit. If you and most everyone your at the table with don't like how something works your certainly quite capable of changing it.
If your looking for an in world reasoning, well the Magus lacks the training to actually know how to properly disarm someone so that axe is going to slip down his weapon and might kill him before he even gets a chance to knock it away. She doesn't know all the tricks to doing a proper disarm safely.
"that's just how it would play out" seems to be a highly dissatisfactory answer in a game where we are describing a series of events in a story, not a sequence of logic problems. I'm not looking for a "that's what the rules say" answer because I am dissatisfied with what the rules say. I'm looking for an in-world justification for why it should work in a certain way. The rules should describe the way stuff in the game world happens. The game world should not describe the way the rules happen.
Well, let's see if I can give you an "in World" explanation. First of all, you need to comprehend the readied actions "way of life": a readied action is an action that begin after the action that triggered it, but it resolve before the same action. For a real world parallel, see an expert soldier of special corpses, like Marines: he's capable, due his training, of anticipate your actions, and react before you can shoot him with your gun, he can see the little hints that point him to decide to disarm you. So, a readied action is something like that. An aoo, otherwise, is an attack that you make because your opponent doesn't have the proper training or is making something that let him with pants down, so to speak. Now, Brainy lack of specific training to disarm properly, so when he attempt that, readied or not, he provoke. Due to lack of training, however, the attempt is somewhat goof, so his technique leave him with his defenses lowered. Brawny surely see that momentaneous off guard, so when Brainy put his hand onto the weapon hold of Brawny, the barbarian slightly rotate the axe (or whatever) to let it fall on Brainy's shoulder. If Brainy was trained he surely could prevent that by grabbing the weapon in a spot that couldn't allow Brawny to rotate his Axe or whatever.
Maybe now I made things more confusing, but I hope you can get the concept.
Then what are you doing in the Rules Forum ?
This is still a rules related question, but it is different in kind from "What do the rules say on this topic". I know what the rules say on this topic, it just seems to not make a whole lot of sense in describing what is happening.
Again, the worry is this: Brawny charges, and Brainy is looking for that axe coming at him. Brainy meets Brawny's attack mid swing, not aiming at Brawny himself, but at his weapon (which is what a disarm/sunder would be). How does Brawny get to stop mid-swing, take a free shot at Brainy, and then follow through his original swing?
Even if we want to follow Morgen's reasoning:
the Magus lacks the training to actually know how to properly disarm someone so that axe is going to slip down his weapon and might kill him before he even gets a chance to knock it away. She doesn't know all the tricks to doing a proper disarm safely.
What in that sequence of actions then justifies Brawny then getting to take a second swing utilizing the momentum of the charge? It's not that it's physically impossible, but what, by virtue of Brainy's attempt to knock Brawny's axe away, grants another attempt to hit Brainy? What you're describing there seems to be a charge closely followed by an unsuccessful disarm attempt.
It seems to me that the idea behind the AoO granted by a person's performing a disarm/trip/sunder is that under normal circumstances, a person targeting their opponent's weapon/feet in an attempt to fanegel them a certain way means they have to go through their opponent's defenses first - hence the AoO. It would seem that mid-attack (or mid-charge as it were), an opponent's weapon would be outside of their normal defenses, and disarms/sunders made at that time would thusly not require a person to go through said defenses and incur the AoO.
Furthermore, we can see how readied actions against charges in particular can have additional effects that have some reasonable appeal: for example, a readied attack with a weapon with the "brace" special quality deals double damage against someone who is charging. While this does not directly justify my case, it at least highlights the kind of special circumstances that can (or should) arise.
Woooah, hold on there. Your the one giving it a series of story event meanings and so forth. The game is just that, a game. It isn't attempting to be a life simulator. It is just a tool for facilitating something for you and your friends to enjoy playing. Five foot cubes roaming about with ability X and damage capability Y.
Now the game is certainly more equipped to handle or encourage sweeping narrative then say Monopoly, but at the end of the day its still a game.
Ask anyone I play Pathfinder with and they'd say you have it backwards. The story and the narrative are the primary objective, with the rules and such being a means to keep things fair. Without the rules, I could have a lazer swords that I pull out of my bellie button that can fly and eat babies because I said so. Beyond keeping things fair, the rules are aimed at preserving the narrative. Pathfinder is steeped in a tradition of storytelling games, not board games. The stories existed before the 5-foot grid ever came into play.
With other games (Warhammer comes to mind) the primary concern is what happens on the battle terrain, not any sort of background narrative. The same is true for card games and the like: the rules come first and you can tell a story about it, but such a narrative is completely secondary and optional.
After hashing this out a bit, a good house rule might go something like this:
Special Initiative Actions > Ready > Readying a Sunder or Disarm against a Melee Attack
As a standard action, you may ready a sunder or disarm maneuver against a creature attempting to attack you with a melee weapon. The trigger for this action must be a melee attack (not a combat maneuver) from a specific target, and the sunder or disarm maneuver must be against the weapon being used in the attack. When the readied action is triggered, the sunder or disarm attempt resolves immediately, and does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Whether or not the combat maneuver was successful, you incur a -2 penalty to AC until the start of your next turn. The targeted creature resumes their turn as usual, although if their weapon is destroyed or disarmed, their initial attack fails (though they can still take any other actions, or any other attacks granted by a full-attack with unarmed strikes or any other weapon they have equipped).
To me, it seems like a mechanic like this is not OP. It requires some strategy and a good deal of luck to be successful. If it is unsuccessful, you've just potentially opened yourself up to a world of hurt.
Why shouldn't Brawny get his AoO ? Be wary of making Readied Actions too powerful. See also threads like this one.
The example in that thread is actually outside of the readied action rules as it is. The person readied an attack, but not a five-foot step. After their attack, which was the readied action, the other person's turn resolves as usual. It also makes sense from a narrative perspective that it would happen that way. Using Brainy and Brawny again: Brainy readies himself for Brawny's attack, Brawny comes in to clobber Brainy, Brainy seizes his opportunity, but Brawny is already mid-swing. Even if Brainy's attack is successful, As long as Brawny is still standing, his attack lands almost immediately after Brainy's does, without giving Brainy ample time to take a quick step back.
Again, the balance goes something like this:
Positives:
* Avoid AoO from disarm or sunder maneuver
* Possibly pre-empt and attack and leave a foe in a compromising position
Negatives:
* Must declare the creature who is to be the target of said maneuver
* Creature must make a melee attack
* Failed disarm attempt by 10 or more still means dropping your own weapon
* -2 penalty to AC (roughly equivalent to the kind of lowering of defenses involved in a charge) to account for the focus needed to strike at the right moment without the proper training represented by the appropriate feat choices.
Given that, what are the community's thoughts on this as a house rule? Would you ever play by such an addendum? Why or why not?
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
"that's just how it would play out" seems to be a highly dis satisfactory answer
Well, I'm not sure the purpose of this thread?
If you are not looking to understand how it would play out then it doesn't matter how you visualize it in your mind. If you and your DM would like to add some house rules or house interpretations, that is up to you guys.
Hold up guys. You don't threaten while moving.
Why not?
If the Disarm was readied for when Brawny came into Brainy's reach, would Brawny threaten Brainy when Brainy provoked?
Assuming Brainy doesn't have a reach weapon, he would have to wait until Brawny was right next to him, so they'd threaten each other..
Well, I'm not sure the purpose of this thread?
If you are not looking to understand how it would play out then it doesn't matter how you visualize it in your mind. If you and your DM would like to add some house rules or house interpretations, that is up to you guys.
I re-iterated my purpose. I wanted some input on how people think things ought to work, under the premise that this is problematic and fairly reality-breaking (understanding the game world is not an actual reality, but we treat it as one for game purposes).
Consider also one of the most popular house-rules in existence: In regards to multi-classing, someone can stack their saves quite rapidly to create a PC that can resist any spell or trap. In response to this, some GMs will say to treat any saves that start at +2 at first level as a +1 increase to their existing base save.
the reason being that even on a fast save progression, after first level, no save ever goes up by more than +1 at a time.
Consider the lvl 4 monk vs the lvl 1 monk (martial artist)/1 bard/2 antipaladin.
4 monk base saves = +4/+4/+4 vs 4 monstrosity = +5/+4+7
Under the house rule, that gets chopped down to a +4/+3+4. That's much more in line with what you'd expect for someone who is spreading their studies so broadly (especially considering that a monk has a fast progression on all saves, and something like a 4th level Bard is looking at a +1/+4/+4).
House rules - especially well-written ones - catch what the RAW sometimes miss. I'm willing to bet a great deal of the rules we take for granted today came from house rules hat became exceedingly popular.
So, apart from telling me the game rules, I'd like some feedback on:
A) Why this isn't problematic as it stands
B) Would you think something like the special rule I formulated is balanced/unbalanced/overcomplicated, and why
C) Would you consider a different solution
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
A) Why this isn't problematic as it stands
B) Would you think something like the special rule I formulated is balanced/unbalanced/overcomplicated, and why
C) Would you consider a different solution
A) I can't cast fireball in real life, so the game shouldn't model real world physics.
B) Overcomplicated and Unwanted/Unneeded.
C) I would never consider a different solution.
Pathfinder is steeped in a tradition of storytelling games, not board games. The stories existed before the 5-foot grid ever came into play.That's the opposite of true, though. Chainmail was a board game. D&D added the storytelling part later.
True, Gygax et al. developed Chainmail before D&D (and assumed you were equipped to already play Chainmail before you cracked the spine on your Dungeons and Dragons books), but what they set out to do with D&D was completely different from what they were doing with Chainmail.
I did get my facts and timeline mixed up, for which I truly apologize (I wasn't even around until 1988). Granted that, the release of the Greyhawk supplement allowed for the players to eschew the game pieces entirely, and it stayed as a legitimate way of playing the game even through the first revision to the second edition. I think that's evidence of the point I was (hamfistedly) trying to at least get at: Pathfinder seems to be based in the D&D tradition of storytelling more heavily than it is based in the Chainmail tradition of wargames (Warhammer might be a modern example of such a game). As such, the rules surrounding it ought to reflect what the people in the story might and might not be able to do instead of what pieces on a board might and might not be able to do.
Aside: I've totally used a sans-board-and-token approach to minor combats in Pathfinder. Not only is it more fun for the minor scuffles, but it's a lot faster.
A) Why this isn't problematic as it standsA) I can't cast fireball in real life, so the game shouldn't model real world physics.
We're not talking about real-world physics. We're talking about the physics of the narrative. The narrative's physics are in many ways similar to the physics of the real world (with the exception of the existence of magic) because they reflect a fantastical version of the world in which we live.
B) Would you think something like the special rule I formulated is balanced/unbalanced/overcomplicated, and whyB)Overcomplicated and Unwanted/Unneeded.
I'd grant you that, but I'd like to see you back that claim up with some sort of reasoning. By whatever reasoning you are using one might argue that a charge is overcomplicated. After all, why not just move up and attack the person? If you're too far away, your character is properly trained in moving that far and attacking. Invest in the feat that gives you more move speed. Why do you need a +2 bonus on the hit, 2x move speed at the cost of -2 AC?. Why do we have to have an extra initiative action just for moving and striking? If it's the case that charge, as a rule, is deserving of its rule status because it already is one, then it's a wonder that these games ever get revised or amended at all. If it's the case that "Well, if I charged at you with a real weapon, I'd have a better chance to hit you but I'd be defending myself less" then we're using "real world physics" again, and according to you, we're not allowed to do that.
I re-iterated my purpose. I wanted some input on how people think things ought to work, under the premise that this is problematic and fairly reality-breaking (understanding the game world is not an actual reality, but we treat it as one for game purposes).
Consider also one of the most popular house-rules in existence: In regards to multi-classing, someone can stack their saves quite rapidly to create a PC that can resist any spell or trap. In response to this, some GMs will say to treat any saves that start at +2 at first level as a +1 increase to their existing base save.
These are not the forums you are looking.
I recommend http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/houseRules
(I realize you have stated you think this one is different somehow, but its not really. The rules are pretty clear. The mental image that makes this seem weird is clear. But it belongs under house rules).
Rules of the game are the physics of the world.
It doesn't really matter what the rules are as long as everyone playing them knows a good portion of them and what to expect.
I know I can jump a 1' gap, and I know my PC can't fail at it either.
That is why the AoOs work the way they do, because they have to work the same way in all cases so people know what to do.
Hold up guys. You don't threaten while moving. If the Disarm was readied for when Brawny came into Brainy's reach, would Brawny threaten Brainy when Brainy provoked?
Yes you do.
And even if you didn't it wouldn't apply to this situation since the Readied action was for when Brawny attacked him, thus Brawny must threaten because A) his movement is over, and B) threatened space is defined as the area you can make a melee attack into and the melee attack is what triggered the readied action.
I am confused as to the purpose here....
Rules
RAW, brawny gets an AaO. Brainy has instigated an action that attracts an AaO, therefore he gets subjected to one. OTOH, if the wizard had a reach weapon, he would disarm outside of reach of the barbarian. No AoO is provoked.
Options for visual manifestation
Remember without improved disarm, brainy has no specialist training in how to effectively perform a disarm and how to defend himself while doing so (provoking an AaO). Forget dashing swordsman and think.... Rincewind.
AaO hits, no disarm attempt. Brainy thrusts his sword out in the hope of achieving something, but has it smashed aside by Brawny's axe with contemptuous ease (AoO). The backswing and may or may not collect his ribcage in the next step (actual attack).
AaO misses, disarm fails. Brainy blocks the incoming swing (AaO) and slide his sword down the haft of the axe attempting to damage or sever Brawny's fingers to make Brawny lose his grip on the axe (disarm). Brainy then screams like a schoolgirl as he realises that while the sword is going towards brawny's fingers, he did in fact NOT block the swing, and the axe is coming towards his head. He quickly aborts the attempt to inconvenience Brawny in favour of not dying immediately (disarm failing). See backswing above for the actual charge attack.
AaO misses, Disarm succeeds. Brainy strikes true on brawny's forearm, jarring brawny's hand long enough to drop the axe (Disarm). Brawny doesn't break stride and grabs brainy's shirt, pulling him in for a headbutt (Unarmed strike).... dragging Brainy's still outstreched sword into his chest in the process (Nat attack AaO). Brawny's final dying words are etched on his tombstone "Your... dice... are... broken..."
Rules changes
There's a house rules / home brew forum a bit lower down (I didn't know about it for years). You might have better luck there.
My .02
RAW is fine. AaOs manifest when your unable to protect yourself properly, or your not dedicating time to your defence. Doing exceptions based on readied actions cheapens the feats involved (When he blinks, I'll grapple him so he can't AoO me because it's a readied action).
|
@Matthew Gilman: Here's a way to imagine the scenario as it played out.
No Luck Brainy:
Brawny is barreling down on Brainy with his lance lowered. Brainy is gambling his life on a do-or-die tactic to knock away the lance before it hits him. He is not trained, so as he prepares his dramatic counter-attack he exposes himself. Brawny, spying the opportunity tilts his lance-head into the opening and catches Brainy, sinking the weapon in a split second before the momentum and force of the charge catch up to drive the length home through Brainy's body.
Lucky Brainy:
Brawny is barreling down on Brainy with his lance lowered. Brainy is gambling his life on a do-or-die tactic to knock away the lance before it hits him. He is not trained, so as he prepares his dramatic counter-attack he exposes himself. Brawny, spying the opportunity tilts his lance-head into the opening, but fails to catch the untrained Brainy. The lance is then fouled out of position and struck from Brawny's hands to clatter to the ground.
It Could Have Been Worse:
Brawny is barreling down on Brainy with his lance lowered. Brainy is gambling his life on a do-or-die tactic to knock away the lance before it hits him. He is not trained, so as he prepares his dramatic counter-attack he exposes himself. Brawny, spying the opportunity tilts his lance-head into the opening and catches Brainy with a solid strike, but before the full force and momentum of his charge carry the blow through Brainy fouls the weapon, entangling it with his body and torques it free from Brawny's hands to clatter to the ground.
Well written, ErrantPursuit.
If you still wanted to make a house rule, perhaps charging prevents one from making aoo's.
<snip>
A) I can't cast fireball in real life, so the game shouldn't model real world physics.Why not? Casting a real life fireball isn't too hard actually. I mean its a little trickier then bat guano pinches but....
Thin latex glove. Cut off pinky finger of glove and fill with sugar and baking soda 2 parts of sugar per baking soda. Tie off finger so they dont spill out. (bat guano comparison)
Ping pong ball with battery acid inside and plugged with a cork. Battery acid wont eat through the ball in under 24 hours. (vessel)
Action : Pull out ball and finger sleeve. Remove cork drop in finger sleeve, recork, shake for 1 second, throw..... RUN...
incidentally, this is why sugar packets and batteries should never be stored together! (i recommend not actually trying this unless you have been trained in pyrotechnics, you most likely will be injured!)