Jame's post is just about the charge, not the readied action.Re-read the questioner's part 2. He says
"2) same but without the charge, meaning the npc take a move action to get at melee range and the PC strike and step back."
James's answer address both the charging case and the non-charging case.
"If the NPC moves to get in melee range, he can still finish his movement to follow the PC, provided the NPC didn't use ALL of his movement to just barely reach the PC."
and
"...the barbarian still has 10 feet of movement left in his move and can use that to continue to close the gap to the PC. If the barbarian were charging, and he can continue to close that gap ..."
In his example, he first addresses the not charging case and then the charging case.
That's pretty ridiculous though, even though that's his interpretation. It completely negates the idea of readying an action against an attacker unless you have a reach weapon with brace.
In addition, it completely contradicts the rules that state you can't use a standard action in the middle of a move action. Plus, it means there's no such thing as starting an action.
Bleh. I'll deal with it.
You can only do that once because your initiative count changes to AFTER the character who you interrupt. After that turn Gronk will full-attack the kobold to death.
Umm...no. Ready actions put your initiative right ahead of who you interrupt. Held actions put you after.
You can only do that once because your initiative count changes to AFTER the character who you interrupt. After that turn Gronk will full-attack the kobold to death.
But... according to the ruling by James you can't even do this once.
Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
Actually, your intiative count would be just before the character who you interrupt.
EDIT: Ninja'd
Umm...no. Ready actions put your initiative right ahead of who you interrupt. Held actions put you after.
You can only do that once because your initiative count changes to AFTER the character who you interrupt. After that turn Gronk will full-attack the kobold to death.
Woops.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well thats stupid. >_< He runs up to me, starts to swing, I hit him 1st, move back, he then recovers, moves and still has time to hit me.
No, it's not stupid.
The awkward, turn based combat system with silly readied actions and free 5'-steps is stupid (but necessary in order to keep combat manageable).
Real life combat, there would be no way to do this - wait for your opponent to start swinging and automatically mike him miss, guaranteed, by simply attacking him AND moving out of reach. You might pull it off, sometimes. In combat training we call that "Stick and Move" or more accurately, "counterpunching and evading". It can be done, but it is never automatic.
But, our game-mechanic created a loophole where the RAW allows this silly trick to negate an opponent, at least on his first round.
That's the part that's stupid.
Apparently, James Jacobs made a post allowing real-world reality and common sense to overrule the silly game mechanic. I totally support this post and the reasons for it.
So quite the opposite, the rules were stupid and James Jacobs post seems to have fixed that stupidity.
Now what happens is he runs up to you, you hit him thanks to your quick reflexes and your preparation, you try to evade him but he follows you and presses forward with his attack - exactly like what would happen in real-world combat. Much better.
There is a lot of people in here who seem to assume that having actions happen doing your move action ends the move. I cannot find that anywhere in the rules, and without that the whole concept collapses.
I based it on spring attack.
Benefit: As a full-round action, you can move up to your speed and make a single melee attack without provoking any attacks of opportunity from the target of your attack. You can move both before and after the attack, but you must move at least 10 feet before the attack and the total distance that you move cannot be greater than your speed. You cannot use this ability to attack a foe that is adjacent to you at the start of your turn.
Normal: You cannot move before and after an attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Woops.Umm...no. Ready actions put your initiative right ahead of who you interrupt. Held actions put you after.
You can only do that once because your initiative count changes to AFTER the character who you interrupt. After that turn Gronk will full-attack the kobold to death.
IMmoooorrtaaaaal Kooobold! *plays mortal combat music*
There is a lot of people in here who seem to assume that having actions happen doing your move action ends the move. I cannot find that anywhere in the rules, and without that the whole concept collapses.
Can you make an attack during your Move action?
Sure, Spring Attack sort of allows that, but lets just stick to basic rules with no extra feats, traits, spells, etc.
The answer is no. You can't.
So I assume that once you start attacking, you are no longer in the middle of your Move action. In fact, your Move action is over because now you are in your Standard action. Our rules system makes it so.
So I'm not making any assumptions, actually. I'm simply reading the rules. You move until you're done moving, then you attack, but once you decide you're attacking, your Standard action begins which means your Move action MUST be done.
Others, including James Jacobs, are seeming to allow you to say "Well, I said I was attacking so clearly I'm in my Standard action, but the guy moved, so I take it back. I never started attacking, I never started my Standard action, I'm still in my Move action, so I keep moving."
I'm fine with that. In fact, I prefer it. But it's not RAW - it's a ruling by James Jacobs, and it completely ignores the fact that the Attack (Standard Action) was the trigger that let the opponent move away with his Readied Action, so if you take it back and never start the attack, you technically never trigger his readied action, so you're still moving and he hasn't made his readied action yet, and when you decide you stop moving and start attacking, you'll trigger his readied action and he'll move away, but you'll take it back and undo the trigger, etc. - a never ending temporal paradox.
So what James Jacobs is REALLY saying is this: "Well, I said I was attacking so clearly I'm in my Standard action, but the guy moved, so I take it back. I never started attacking, I never started my Standard action, I'm still in my Move action, so I keep moving AND neener neener neener I ruined your Readied Action and you can't take YOURS back, only I can, neener, neener, neener."
Which is weird to me. But despite the weirdness, it's more realistic (it's only weird in the context of the unrealistic turn-based combat rules).
Normal: You cannot move before and after an attack.But of course! That is why we must decipher whether the attack actually takes place, even if it is forfeit due to being out of range.
I say no, in support of BigNorseWolf.
Well it seems people are saying there are 3 things taking place.
1) Movement.2) Declaration that you ended movement and is about to attack
3) Actual attack.
RE: before and after the attack?
WHAT attack? No attack roll was made.
Well then what did the person step away from?
The attack.
Which never happened so he doesn't step away. So i attack
Ok, so I step away...
And Golarion gets stuck in a Timey Whimey Ball.
The DM sorts it out and puts the 5 foot step before the attack so that we can get on with killing things and having fun.
When you have two potential ways to read the rules, 1 is exploitable for cheese and one is not... take the one without extra cheese. The attack is one discrete action in zero time. There is no during.
Jame's post is just about the charge, not the readied action.Re-read the questioner's part 2. He says
"2) same but without the charge, meaning the npc take a move action to get at melee range and the PC strike and step back."
James's answer address both the charging case and the non-charging case.
"If the NPC moves to get in melee range, he can still finish his movement to follow the PC, provided the NPC didn't use ALL of his movement to just barely reach the PC."
and
"...the barbarian still has 10 feet of movement left in his move and can use that to continue to close the gap to the PC. If the barbarian were charging, and he can continue to close that gap ..."
In his example, he first addresses the not charging case and then the charging case.
That's pretty ridiculous though, even though that's his interpretation. It completely negates the idea of readying an action against an attacker unless you have a reach weapon with brace.
In addition, it completely contradicts the rules that state you can't use a standard action in the middle of a move action. Plus, it means there's no such thing as starting an action.
Bleh. I'll deal with it.
It is stupid, but you don't *have* to deal with it. JJ's posts are not RAW, and he is not a "rules guy." What he says in his Ask JJ thread is frequently against the actual RAW, as it is here.
It really helps to have an BBEG for whom intelligence wasn't a dump stat. Quite reasonable to have the bad guys adapt to cheese tactics.Players sometimes react negatively to simply giving lots of monsters feats that counter their abilities - but if you do it in an encounter way (rather than a stats-way), they will thank you (eventually).
Have the BBEG, or even just some minions, corner the ready-retreating party by a cliff. Then remind them why the Bull Rush rules exist. Have a trio of hobgoblins try to coax the player to backing into a pit trap, possibly by flanking and giving them only one safe direction to 5' step (and offer an Intelligence check to notice the pattern). Why? Because you didn't take their shiny ability away, you made their success or failure depend on their choice to use it or not.
There is a difference between not letting a player use a feat they selected, or a class feature as opposed to not letting them exploit technical limitations within the rules.
Although I think your ideas for shutting it down are more interesting than simply countering it by giving creatures extra feats, but that is the sort of thing intelligent monsters should be doing anyway and not simply as a way of countering player tactics.
You don't ready for when they stop moving.
You ready to strike them and step away as they begin their swing.
They were in the midst of their attack / attack action. They CANNOT move again before completing that action.
Unless you think the rules shouldn't apply, like JJ apparently does.
You don't ready for when they stop moving.
You ready to strike them and step away as they begin their swing.
They were in the midst of their attack / attack action. They CANNOT move again before completing that action.
Unless you think the rules shouldn't apply, like JJ apparently does.
You're assuming that there is a start to the swing.
That assumption makes the game unplayable for melee.
Assume something else.
"an attack" in pathfinder is not one movement of the sword. While your mini is standing there like a hunk of lead, the character is feinting, dodging, weaving, wheeling the horse around, whirling the sword about etc. for six seconds. You can't just pick the one twitch of the blade out of the lineup thats the actual attack and only react to that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Following JJ's logic, if you ready an action to shoot a wizard with the trigger "he starts casting a spell", you can shoot him, but then he can simply choose to not cast at all. I mean, he never actually started casting, right? For that matter, he can go ahead and cast (the same spell or a different one) without making a concentration check, since the casting didn't start until after the attack. Basically, JJ's ruling is "oh yeah, well I change my mind no takebacks times infinity plus one!" and, while it makes the sidestep situation seem more realistic, it makes other situations make even less sense. There is literally no way to ready an action to hit a caster casting a normal, standard-action spell in such a way as to force a concentration check, and I doubt this is the intent.
That's pretty reasonable. I prefer the existing method. The immortal tap dancing kobold is amusing but mythical.
I think a more preferable solution would be to only allow 5' steps during readied actions before the action, not after.
No, that's not right either. There are no rules so far that say which order you must take your actions. You're free to take the actions in your round in whatever order suits you.
Adding limitations to this freedom is not adding anything at all, it's subtracting, limiting, restricting. And it's not following the existing precedent.
Better yet is to ignore James Jacobs hasty post (I assume it's hasty because it's very flawed, as Blahpers pointed out and hopefully as I did too). It's easy to ignore because it doesn't appear in the RAW and it doesn't appear in the FAQ or Errata. Yet. Hopefully we are not yet beholden to read, memorize, and apply everything every official dev has said on all these forums - until they make it official, it's just an opinion.
Just like my post here is an opinion, although I daresay an opinion from James Jacobs carries far more wight with far more people than my opinion (which only carries weight with me, no doubt). I'm almost always willing to follow James Jacobs' opinions.
Except when they're hasty. Or wrong.
This one, I think I'll ignore, except to cross my fingers and hope nobody makes it official...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DM_Blake: if you can show me what a meleer can do to kill the immortal kobold short of throwing their sword in frustration I'm listening.
Until then I'm going with the interpretations that make the game playable rather than the interpretations that make it neigh unplayable.
Except in the case of spells, which is specifically stated, you do not lose your actions in a chain.
Assume two Level 1 opponents with no feats.
If A tries to trip B, A provokes an AoO.
If B uses that to trip A, B provokes an AoO.
If A uses the AoO and successfully trips B, A never used his original standard action. A still has it. A can now make a standard attack at the prone B.
All chains work this way, except, as stated before, in the explicitly described "Distracting Spellcasters" part of readied actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, there seem to be three primary philosophies at work here, with some variations:
1. A readied action against an opponent reacts to an opponent somehow telegraphing their next action before their current action has even completed. The readied action interrupts any preceding action by the opponent already in progress, but the opponent is free to continue the original action (even revising it, if the original action involves mid-action decisions, such as moving or choosing serial targets) as well as revising or replacing the subsequent action that triggered the response. This seems more "realistic" in that it seemingly maps better to a real-life fight. However, it negates a great number of legitimate uses of readied actions. However, such reading of opponents' intended actions is usually the purview of Sense Motive and the like. If one doesn't subscribe to the telegraphing theory but still adheres to this rule, it creates causality problems, as the reactor inexplicably reacted to something that never happened. It also somewhag devalues the Step Up line of feats, though not terribly so. Finally, it makes the concept of interrupting a spell via anything other than an attack of opportunity (or some special effect like contingency) impossible. Kobolds are trivially screwed.
2. A readied action interrupts the action that triggered it. Any actions prior to the trigger are considered complete, as otherwise there would be nothing to react to--for example, you can't take a standard after a move until the move is complete. Since the trigger was only about to begin, the interrupted action has not really happened yet and can thus be changed. This is only subtly different than the last--the opponent is still telegraphing the action, but not until it would normally begin. In this case, at least, the action was decided on by the time the trigger happens; any change in the opponent's behavior can be considered reactive. This is not bad for verisimilitude, and it skewers the immortal tapdancing mobile per the strategies posted by DM_Blake et al. while still allowing readied steps to be tactically worthwhile. The only real contradiction in RAW (other than the current discussion this list is about) is that it still doesn't allow interrupting a standard action spell in such a way that it forces a concentration check except via AoO or special stuff.
3. A readied action interrupts an action as it begins. Since the action already began, it cannot be rescinded, though it continues if possible, and any choices normally allowed mid-action (such as where to move during a regular move or who to attack with any remaining attacks) can still be made. This allows spell interruption to still make sense and avoids all causality issues, but there is still that damn kobold--you pretty much have to trap it or find a way to affect it at range or with something other than an attack. Kronk is going to get scratched up (or simply lose his prey) if there isn't any significant terrain impediment and there aren't any sturdy rocks around. It also feels pretty cheesy, as a tactic useful primarily for the first engagement in 2 becomes akin to a perfect total defense that still allows a standard action.
I can say that I'm most comfortable with 2 from a "shaddup and have fun" perspective--excepting the irritating spell interruption problem. 3 is appealing as it lacks causal issues but is almost patentlh ridiculous (though appropriate for more slapstick groups). 1 is the hasty solution that feels right in the gut but is headache-inducing under even slight scrutiny.
All this being said, this one doesn't have a perfect solution by RAW becuse the description of a ready action is on it's face impossible--it reacts to someone else's action but somehow occurs before its cause. That core of illogic makes any resolution inherently flawed in one way or another.
Solution: RAW ready is boned. House it until it works for you and your group.
DM_Blake: if you can show me what a meleer can do to kill the immortal kobold short of throwing their sword in frustration I'm listening.
No problem.
I will call using a readied action to make one attack and then taking a 5'step, "The Trick".
(ITDK = Immortal Tap Dancing Kobold, for short - no pun intended)
Round 1: ITDK readies an action to use The Trick. Gronk advances 25' and attempts to attack. ITDK uses his readied The Trick. The round ends.
Score: ITDK 1 attack, Gronk none.
Round 2: ITDK readies an action to use The Trick. Gronk uses a 5'step to advance 5' adjacent to ITDK and then readies his own action to attack ITDK if it moves. ITDK loses his readied action because Gronk never attacks so he never triggers ITDK's The Trick. The round ends.
Score: ITDK 1 attack, Gronk none.
Round 3: ITDK begins his turn adjacent to Gronk. If he moves with a normal move action, Gronk will get two attacks, one from his readied action and then another one from the AoO when IDTK leaves the threatened square. If ITDK uses a 5'step to move out of reach, then he cannot ready The Trick. The best he can do is attack Gronk and 5'Step away. ITDK's movement triggers Gronk's readied action, so he attacks ITDK and then takes a 5'Step adjacent to it. The round ends.
Score: ITDK 2 attacks, Gronk 1.
Round 4: It's Gronk's turn. He now goes before ITDK because his readied action last round moved him up in the initiative order (see the quote below for reference). Gronk unloads his entire full-attack on ITDK.
Score: ITDK 2 attacks, Gronk 2 or more (depending on his full attack).
It's now been 3.5 rounds and the attacks are even, or worse (for ITDK). Waste of time. Of course, if ITDK is still alive, he still gets to go in round 4. Maybe he'll stand his ground and attack. But he cannot move away and ready The Trick without triggering an AoO (or attempting to tumble, which might work, might not). Even if he successfully tumbles away, it's still dead even, or worse, and now we begin round 5 the way we began round 1.
Stupid, I know. Combat shouldn't have to work this way. As a GM I would not waste time like this, and I would ask the players not to do it either. Because it's very unrealistic, metagamey, and immersion breaking, and because it gains no advantage.
The readied action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
Except in the case of spells, which is specifically stated, you do not lose your actions in a chain.
Assume two Level 1 opponents with no feats.
If A tries to trip B, A provokes an AoO.
If B uses that to trip A, B provokes an AoO.
If A uses the AoO and successfully trips B, A never used his original standard action. A still has it. A can now make a standard attack at the prone B.All chains work this way, except, as stated before, in the explicitly described "Distracting Spellcasters" part of readied actions.
Unfortunately, discussion of attacks of opportunity is irrelevant, as a readied action isn't an attack of opportunity. Though both are reactive, they have extremely different rules.
Well, there seem to be three primary philosophies at work here, with some variations:
Lots of analysis.
Only #3 complies with the RAW.
Short version:
1. "A readied action against an opponent reacts to an opponent somehow telegraphing their next action before their current action has even completed."
Somehow every combatant in the game, even mindless zombies and oozes, posses the ability to see the future, to know what their opponents are going to do in a future action before the opponent has even begun that action, in fact, while he is still in the middle of previous actions.
Poppycock.
Nobody gets to see the future. Well, maybe as a class or racial ability, but certainly not as a standard generic combat tactic for every combatant in all the game.
2. "A readied action interrupts the action that triggered it."
This is RAW, actually, not a philosophy.
"Any actions prior to the trigger are considered complete, as otherwise there would be nothing to react to--for example, you can't take a standard after a move until the move is complete."
This is also RAW. You cannot, by RAW, begin your standard action while your move action is still in progress. Sure, there are feats for that, such as Spring Attack. Otherwise, without feats or other explicit exceptions, there is now way possible, by RAW, to begin a standard action while you're still in the middle of a move action. Period. When your standard action begins, your move action is, de facto, finished.
"Since the trigger was only about to begin, the interrupted action has not really happened yet and can thus be changed. This is only subtly different than the last--the opponent is still telegraphing the action, but not until it would normally begin."
No. This is not the "philosophy". The interrupted action HAS really happened and cannot be changed. If you begin your standard action, and it gets interrupted by someone's readied action, you can continue the action you had already begun if you are able to, otherwise, it was interrupted and now you're done with that action. Sure, it implies telegraphing the action you have already begun, which does not require combatants to see the future, but rather, to only see what is happening before their very eyes.
"3. A readied action interrupts an action as it begins. Since the action already began, it cannot be rescinded, though it continues if possible, and any choices normally allowed mid-action (such as where to move during a regular move or who to attack with any remaining attacks) can still be made."
You're just describing the RAW here. Good. That's what this thread needs.
"This allows spell interruption to still make sense and avoids all causality issues, but there is still that damn kobold--you pretty much have to trap it or find a way to affect it at range or with something other than an attack. Kronk is going to get scratched up (or simply lose his prey) if there isn't any significant terrain impediment and there aren't any sturdy rocks around. It also feels pretty cheesy, as a tactic useful primarily for the first engagement in 2 becomes akin to a perfect total defense that still allows a standard action."
Nope, see my previous post. I shot down that ITDK with poor little Gronk, no ranged weapon, no feats, no tricks.
So, "Philosophy" #3 for the win. Or, at least for the RAW.
To clarify, I used the term "philosophy" as I was analyzing the three general philosophies present in this and similar threads. In no way was I attempting to imply that they were all equally valid interpretations of RAW. Indeed, at the end, I'm forced to conclude that there is no valid interpretation of RAW, as the RAW in question violates causality.
Excellent summary of ITDK's prospects. ITDK maintains no more than a one hit lead on Gronk, which he essentially forfeits on Round 2. #3 is at least more palatable mechanically than I thought.
Round 3: ITDK begins his turn adjacent to Gronk. If he moves with a normal move action, Gronk will get two attacks, one from his readied action and then another one from the AoO when IDTK leaves the threatened square. If ITDK uses a 5'step to move out of reach, then he cannot ready The Trick. The best he can do is attack Gronk and 5'Step away. ITDK's movement triggers Gronk's readied action, so he attacks ITDK and then takes a 5'Step adjacent to it. The round ends.
Round 3, the kobold holds his action AGAIN to do the same thing while standing next to the barbarian.
This locks Gronk into holding as well.
The party bard plays "Caaaan you feeel the loove toniiight" as they stare longingly into each others eyes.
Round 3: ITDK begins his turn adjacent to Gronk. If he moves with a normal move action, Gronk will get two attacks, one from his readied action and then another one from the AoO when IDTK leaves the threatened square. If ITDK uses a 5'step to move out of reach, then he cannot ready The Trick. The best he can do is attack Gronk and 5'Step away. ITDK's movement triggers Gronk's readied action, so he attacks ITDK and then takes a 5'Step adjacent to it. The round ends.
Round 3, the kobold holds his action AGAIN to do the same thing while standing next to the barbarian.
This locks Gronk into holding as well.
The party bard plays "Caaaan you feeel the loove toniiight" as they stare longingly into each others eyes.
Doesn't work.
Round 3: ITDK readies The Trick while adjacent to Gronk. Gronk uses his Full Attack to attack ITDK. ITDK uses The Trick to stab Gronk and move. Gronk is still in his Full Attack because, while readied actions interrupt the action that triggers them, Gronk can continue his current action if he is able, so unless ITDK killed him, paralyzed him, petrified him, stunned him, etc., Gronk gets to continue his Full Attack. He is allowed to take a 5'Step during his Full Attack, so as soon as ITDK steps away, ending IDTK's readied action, Gronk takes his 5'Step and continues his Full Attack action, taking all his attacks.
I consider being able to give up my initiative advantage in order to use my foe's aggressiveness against him to be "fun and playable," though.
One house rule to deal with this might be to treat the 5' step like immediate actions (uses your next turns swift action).
Can you TWF armor spikes and a reach weapon? If so that would be another 'solution'.
Why does everyone keep trying to nerf a balanced, purely defensive option that can be defeated simply by the enemy throwing a freaking rock at you?
Round 3: ITDK readies The Trick while adjacent to Gronk. Gronk uses his Full Attack to attack ITDK
Thats assuming Gronk is level 6 or higher.
Are you really telling me that you need three rounds for a 6th level barbarian to kill a kobold in melee?
The kobold doesn't wait for gronks "full attack" he waits for gronks first attack. You've just done for the "full attack" what we;re saying to do for all attacks and opened up the same Timey whimey ball you want to avoid: If Gronk never took his first swing then the kobolds readied action never went off.
Why does everyone keep trying to nerf a balanced, purely defensive option that can be defeated simply by the enemy throwing a freaking rock at you?
The level 1 kobold holding off a level 20 barbarian for three rounds isn't balanced. Dodging out of the way is what your AC is for.
The level 20 barbarian pulls out a club (aka, a free stick he found on the ground at some point), moves in range, and hucks it at the kobold, with the impact vaporizing it into atomic particles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was kinda hoping that Gronk was a very low level adventurer, just now starting out, who hadn't learned the value of having more than one single melee weapon, a reach weapon, some kind of ranged weapon, some feats like Lunge, Improved Trip, Step Up, Spring Attack, etc., some magic items, even something as simple as a tanglefoot bag, and who hadn't learned that adventuring solo is suicidal.
Now I see that BigNorseWolf is playing a far less sophisticated level 20 barbarian than I ever imagined possible.
I begin to see the real problem here.
I was kinda hoping that Gronk was a very low level adventurer, just now starting out, who hadn't learned the value of having more than one single melee weapon, a reach weapon, some kind of ranged weapon, some feats like Lunge, Improved Trip, Step Up, Spring Attack, etc., some magic items, even something as simple as a tanglefoot bag, and who hadn't learned that adventuring solo is suicidal.
Now I see that BigNorseWolf is playing a far less sophisticated level 20 barbarian than I ever imagined possible.
I begin to see the real problem here.
You took 3 rounds of combat to get your secondary attack at a kobold.
You had to wait till level 6 before you even got your first kill... you're falling WAY behind legolas.
The way you do it is just as arbitrary as the way I do it. Its not "more raw!". Yours is not the one true path that must be adhered to or else you're in the murky realm of house rules.
You can use a full attack at level 1. You don't need iteratives. You could just use two weapons.
Furthermore, you can full-attack even when you only have one attack - totally allowed. The combat rules say you 'must' use a full attack if you want to make more than one attack, but nowhere does it say that, if you use a full attack, then you 'must' make more than one attack.
I already said The Trick is cheesy and metagamey and only works in a turn-based combat game mechanic, and for those reasons, I wouldn't use it and I would ask my players not to use it too. At best, in perfect conditions, it lets a tactical defender exploit cheesy gamey mechanics to gain one attack, at the cost of wasting lots of game time. I will further say that at my table, if someone tried to use it and didn't comply with my request not to use it, I would happily delve into "the murky realm of house rules" to invalidate this cheese.
But this is still a "Rules Questions" forum, right? Shouldn't we be discussing RAW then? Assuming precognitive powers for every combatant in the game system is pretty far away from RAW. Assuming one combatant can rewrite history and take back an action he has already started while at the same time denying his opponent the same luxury is also pretty far from RAW.
I am not assuming that my path is the one true path to which all must adhere - I'm just reading the RAW and not allowing EVERYTHING in the game system to predict the future or alter the past.
The kobold doesn't wait for full attack, he waits for the attack.
It's not the swing of the sword that is interrupted. It's the action itself that is interrupted, but not prevented - the interrupted combatant can still continue his action if he is able to.
The problem is, if Gronk uses a Standard Action to attack, and ITDK uses The Trick to interrupt that action and move away, Gronk is still allowed to continue his Standard action and make his attack - the attack was not interrupted or prevented. However, ITDK is out of reach and Gronk is not allowed to move anymore, so while Gronk can still attack, he has no way to make that attack
But, if Gronk uses a Full Attack to attack, and ITDK uses The Trick to interrupt that action and move away, Gronk is still allowed to continue his Full Attack action and make his attack AND this action allows him to include a 5'Step, so he can simply take that 5'Step and make his attacks against ITDK. No problem.
That's where the difference in the two types of attack lies, and why one works and the other one doesn't.
There is no raw declaration of a full attack vs. a standard attack until after the first attack. The swing is the swing, not a subset of a full attack.
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack: After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out and assuming you have not already taken a move action this round. If you've already taken a 5-foot step, you can't use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
Dodging the first attack in a full attack works just like dodging any other attack.