|
Readying a 5 step makes perfect sense- when someone attacks me, I'm ready to jump back away from the attack. It is useful once, takes most of your time (standard to prepare) and is useless against ranged attacks (so if you don't specify melee I'll hose you as a GM.) Also, you could wield a reach weapon and ready an attack for when you're attacked, get the AoO if they provoke, jump back (5' step) from their attack and then whack them.
As to the readying total defense, it's no different from delaying until just before the bad guy and then using total defense- you still get no AoOs until your next turn, which in either case is now just before the bad guy. It's essentially saying "I'm going to be on my guard until he gets close enough to hit me, when I'm going to spend all my attention to keep him from hitting me."
Makes sense in the real world, to me.
|
Meaning in actuality they could ready an action to attack the enemy with a reach or ranged weapon when the enemy attacks them, trigger the ready, step back, and whallop the enemy.
That being said I don't see why when the enemy "resumes" their attack after the ready they couldn't then 5-foot step closer before completing the action, so this would really only work if the enemy started more than a square away.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Either due to the players being aware of a situation, or just using technically legal rules that are just trying to game a combat advantage from a turn based system. Can a GM not allow purely metagame actions.
.....
Both feel metagamey to me and an artifact of the turn based system. In a real time combat situation, neither would make "sense"
Hmmm...
Let's examine this. So you say you dislike actions that only work in a turn-based system and don't make sense in real-time combat.
Now let's look at a couple of things. If you take damage while casting a spell, you have to make a concentration check or lose the spell. Now, if I hit you with an AoO or readied action on your turn when you cast, you have to make a check. But if I attack you on my turn, even if I full-attack and/or crit you, even if I'm the last person to act before your turn, then you can just step back and cast without a care in the world.
That really only works in a turn-based system and makes no sense in real-time combat where those two situations would be nearly identical. Yet I don't see this among your list of gripes.
Magic circle against evil (and similar spells) make a little bubble for the party to sit in. In real-time, you could all be walking along at a normal pace at the same time, staying within the bubble; but in a turn-based combat system, suddenly it's nearly impossible for the party to stay in the bubble while moving around, making such spells nearly worthless for their intended purpose.
Though I've seen complaints about this, I've never seen you (or any other GM) ask whether they're allowed to overrule the "metagamey" nature of being unable to stay in the radius and try to make it work more like real-time.
I could list more examples, but let's stop there for now. The point is, there are a LOT of situations where things work differently in Pathfinder's turn-based combat system than they would in real-time. And yet, I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of them are things that either never occurred to you, or simply don't bother you at all, or at least don't bother you enough to come on the boards and ask for permission to overrule the rules.
If I'm correct in that guess, then that would mean that what you dislike about the tactics you mentioned is something other than the fact that they only work in a turn-based system. If that was what bothered you, you'd be bothered by a bunch of other things, yet (presumably) you're not (at least not to the same degree).
So if it's not truly the "turn-based versus real-time" issue that makes your examples so unsavory to you, then what might it be? I would advise dedicating a little time to determining the answer to that question.
If you misidentify the problem, you'll never find a satisfactory solution. But if you can nail down what it is that's really bothering you, then you stand a much better chance of finding a happy ending. :)
Good luck!
A gm can do what they want, they can house rule it if everybody agrees to the rules. It really comes down to what you and your players are looking for.
Different game systems go into different levels of abstraction for combat and whatnot and not every game is going to fit the levels you want. This should not discourage you from playing these games. Just make a change you want, make sure everyone understands and continue to play that way. This is a great exercise for understanding mechanics and how they influence narrative and decisions.
As to your problems with those actions, I have heard this said before. That if a person did x then person y should be able to do z in the real world. The only thing I can say is try to change the rules and test them. Let us know the results and how it changed the game for you and your group.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
A gm can do what they want, they can house rule it if everybody agrees to the rules. It really comes down to what you and your players are looking for.
Different game systems go into different levels of abstraction for combat and whatnot and not every game is going to fit the levels you want. This should not discourage you from playing these games. Just make a change you want, make sure everyone understands and continue to play that way. This is a great exercise for understanding mechanics and how they influence narrative and decisions.
As to your problems with those actions, I have heard this said before. That if a person did x then person y should be able to do z in the real world. The only thing I can say is try to change the rules and test them. Let us know the results and how it changed the game for you and your group.
Note that this thread is in the Organized Play section, and OP GMs don't get to customize the rules like that.
Speaking more broadly though, yes, people should find (or create!) a system whose abstraction-to-realism ratio is to their liking, which may or may not be Organized Play.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, as part of a readied action, but the readied action cannot be the 5 ft step.A 5-foot step can certainly be part of a readied action.
Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The 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.
You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round
So...ready a free action to laugh in their face...and 5' step back... At that point it's semantics.
Also, the 5' step back doesn't really work if the attacker still has movement left...so you 5' step out of the way...and they continue their movement and still attack. Their 5' step happens before your attack, so there's no real reason to not be able to continue on with your own movement.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Also, the 5' step back doesn't really work if the attacker still has movement left...so you 5' step out of the way...and they continue their movement and still attack. Their 5' step happens before your attack, so there's no real reason to not be able to continue on with your own movement.
Eh... Not so much. Pathfinder is not a system where you have a pool of movement that you can draw from on-demand throughout your turn. It's a system where you have discreet actions that start and finish and (aside from swift and free actions) can never overlap.
What you (and others) seem to be picturing is that a combatant starts "spending" movement to approach, then is about to attack, sees the circumstances change, and decides to "spend" more movement.
How it actually works is that a combatant declares the use of a move action to move up to their speed. They move, and they have to officially end the move action before they can even declare their next action. Then they declare an attack as a standard action, and the other guy's readied action triggers. Though you could maybe argue that the ready went off before the first guy's standard action started (and therefore they could choose a different standard action instead of attacking), it's pretty cut-and-dry that the move action has already ended (it HAD to end before the ready could even get triggered in the first place). There's no support for the idea that you can go back and retroactively alter an action that has already been completely resolved.
|
No one in my area really tries tricks like this as they are usually frowned upon. To a degree, this is because most people feel they are cheesy, but really it's because attempts to use such cheese will invariably create an argument that disrupts the game. And for most people, the desire to have a smooth, fun game outweighs the desire to show everyone some cool metagame trick they discovered.
I would simply recommend talking to the players who do this and explaining its potential problems. While not everyone listens, more do than don't.
I think the most egregious trick I have ever used like this involved a Wall of Force and two successive readied actions.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
No one in my area really tries tricks like this as they are usually frowned upon. To a degree, this is because most people feel they are cheesy, but really it's because attempts to use such cheese will invariably create an argument that disrupts the game. And for most people, the desire to have a smooth, fun game outweighs the desire to show everyone some cool metagame trick they discovered.
I would simply recommend talking to the players who do this and explaining its potential problems. While not everyone listens, more do than don't.
I think the most egregious trick I have ever used like this involved a Wall of Force and two successive readied actions.
Accusations of "cheese" aside, it's a very valid point that (A) this tactic will almost certainly derail the game with arguments, and (B) this tactic, even if well-understood and unquestioned, takes a good deal of time and bookkeeping that makes it an unnecessary headache to use regularly. Save it for when you're trying to prevent a TPK.
|
|
Legal = Yes.
Ethical = No.
This tactic is more powerful than Swashbucklers Dodging Panache and can be accomplished with ZERO investment other than the readied action.
This tactic also defeats Spring Attack which allows movement before and after the attack and significant investment feat-wise.
This tactic defeats Charge attempts even by opponents with reach, since they stop in the 1st square legal for attacking.
I can easily counter these tactics in home brew, but not in PFS where tactics and equipment are dictated. And although Grandpoobah is also correct, the retaliation of NPC's endlessly countering with the same tactics places me in violation of the "ensure everyone has fun" clause and punishes a group at the expense of one.
In short, if you are a player, don't do this.
|
This tactic is more powerful than Swashbucklers Dodging Panache and can be accomplished with ZERO investment other than the readied action.
The cost in action economy is the greatest balancing factor in this tactic. You're giving up your entire turn to avoid a single hit. It is not that powerful, it is just good strategy.
|
|
This tactic is more powerful than Swashbucklers Dodging Panache and can be accomplished with ZERO investment other than the readied action.The cost in action economy is the greatest balancing factor in this tactic. You're giving up your entire turn to avoid a single hit. It is not that powerful, it is just good strategy.
Action economy is still in the players favor to nullify a charge attempt (whether it is 1 attack or 4/pounce). The player interrupts to do a standard attack and steps away 5'... leaving the other 5 players to attack the BBEG who is standing there dumbfounded.
|
|
Legal = Yes.
Ethical = No.
This tactic is more powerful than Swashbucklers Dodging Panache and can be accomplished with ZERO investment other than the readied action.
This tactic also defeats Spring Attack which allows movement before and after the attack and significant investment feat-wise.
This tactic defeats Charge attempts even by opponents with reach, since they stop in the 1st square legal for attacking.
I can easily counter these tactics in home brew, but not in PFS where tactics and equipment are dictated. And although Grandpoobah is also correct, the retaliation of NPC's endlessly countering with the same tactics places me in violation of the "ensure everyone has fun" clause and punishes a group at the expense of one.
In short, if you are a player, don't do this.
They're taking their standard action to accomplish a non-action to avoid getting attacked once by an opponent who doesn't have reach and didn't start adjacent to them. If they started adjacent I'd allow my opponent to 5' step and finish his full attack anyways. Note they couldn't have moved on their turn either. Dodging Panache's action economy is the big thing here.
Now, if you want to talk about contingent action scrolls to do these sorts of things, that is a whole different beast, and I'm fortunate to not have run across that at my tables yet!
I have no issue with magical contingent actions, it's magic.
There is no issue where the opponent starts adjacent to the PC, but once it becomes 10' or more and the opponent is forced into a preliminary move action and can no longer follow suit after the PC's 5' readied step. Sure he can then use a second move to get up close and personal to avoid future shenanigans, but at the expense of an entire turn economy has been wasted by the BBEG.
Since typical combat last 2-3 rounds, this is unbalancing indeed, especially considering it can be done with no investment relative to the offensive creature.
|
|
Wait, so a PC spending an entire turn to avoid an attack is so low-cost as to be overpowered, but the BBEG spending a turn to negate that tactic is an unbalancingly-high cost?
Your notion of balance seems a bit unbalanced.
Please see below. If an untrained peasant can pull it off (readied action) and can completely devastate a trained professional using multiple feats, then yes.
|
|
I don't mean to be contrary, especially in the presence of so many GM stars and posters whom I respect, but I fail to see how this is not game breaking.
I will start with 2 previous examples no one else has touched on: Some are easy, but have repercussions on the others regardless of how its gets ruled.
1) Note: This tactic also defeats Spring Attack which allows movement before and after the attack and significant investment feat-wise.
2) Note: This tactic defeats Charge attempts even by opponents with reach, since they stop in the 1st square legal for attacking.
3) This defeats a person coming out of stealth to melee attack. An opponent appears from no where and swings at you, Per my readied action, "I attack and 5' step back and oh, if he wants to follow me he is no longer stealthed".
4) What if used in conjunction against a charge where the charge would no longer be legal (behind cover or difficult terrain)?
What if they had ride-by?
What if the charge is completely in the open but its no longer a perfectly straight line due to the 5' step?
Does the charge still happen (the movement/AC penalty) or can they select another target at the beginning of the charge?
If they can select a new target along the path of their original charge a target is within range but it won't be the 1st threatened square they could attack from if they charged that person originally?
The charge was only a 30' charge from horseback (50' movement), since the charge didn't happen can they call it a standard movement instead and do a standard attack?
I consider these waters sufficiently muddied by allowing this interrupt-able 5' step. It just seems to open way more interpretive rulings which can bog down the game.
My apologies for the long post, but my mind is still reeling from the possibilities this creates. I'm sure these issues have come up before and can be adjudicated.
|
It is actually more of an advantage for the player, yes. Because of how CR calculated, PCs almost always have an action-economy advantage in any fight that would be that deadly. The BBEG has to find ways to catch up asap, or else he will get steamrolled. If it's a melee fighter BBEG, he basically needs to drop at least one person a round to even have a hope of catching up.
You can also look at it this way:
One PC gives up his turn: 1/4-1/6 of player actions for the round.
BBEG gives up his turn: All, possible 1/2 or 1/3 at most of baddie actions gone.
Yes, the bad guys might end up with more dudes, but they either need to get summoned in, or the CR budget will be so spread out that the enemy's wont be much of threat, and the PCs would have steamrolled the fight no matter what.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It is actually more of an advantage for the player, yes. Because of how CR calculated, PCs almost always have an action-economy advantage in any fight that would be that deadly. The BBEG has to find ways to catch up asap, or else he will get steamrolled. If it's a melee fighter BBEG, he basically needs to drop at least one person a round to even have a hope of catching up.
You can also look at it this way:
One PC gives up his turn: 1/4-1/6 of player actions for the round.
BBEG gives up his turn: All, possible 1/2 or 1/3 at most of baddie actions gone.Yes, the bad guys might end up with more dudes, but they either need to get summoned in, or the CR budget will be so spread out that the enemy's wont be much of threat, and the PCs would have steamrolled the fight no matter what.
The action imbalance with the "single BBEG" type of fight is a known issue that has absolutely nothing to do with the tactic in question, because it's far broader than that: anything that lets you trade actions with an enemy is strong when your side has more actions.
|
|
It is actually more of an advantage for the player, yes. Because of how CR calculated, PCs almost always have an action-economy advantage in any fight that would be that deadly. The BBEG has to find ways to catch up asap, or else he will get steamrolled. If it's a melee fighter BBEG, he basically needs to drop at least one person a round to even have a hope of catching up.
You can also look at it this way:
One PC gives up his turn: 1/4-1/6 of player actions for the round.
BBEG gives up his turn: All, possible 1/2 or 1/3 at most of baddie actions gone.Yes, the bad guys might end up with more dudes, but they either need to get summoned in, or the CR budget will be so spread out that the enemy's wont be much of threat, and the PCs would have steamrolled the fight no matter what.
The action imbalance with the "single BBEG" type of fight is a known issue that has absolutely nothing to do with the tactic in question, because it's far broader than that: anything that lets you trade actions with an enemy is strong when your side has more actions.
I look forward to the day someone charges me with a lance and when they are 10' away I taunt them and 5' step toward them (within the lances minimum range).
Seriously, why are peasants scared of knights at all? After all, its simply "tactics".
|
|
It's okay for tactical use of actions to be worth doing. It really is.
This. Anything is better than "I pounce." "They full attack." "I full attack back" ad nauseum.
I look forward to the day someone charges me with a lance and when they are 10' away I taunt them and 5' step toward them (within the lances minimum range).
Please provide video when you do. ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Seriously, why are peasants scared of knights at all? After all, its simply "tactics".
Yeah, what kind of crappy story would it make if some clever peasant thought to wait until the last minute and then dive out of the way of a charging knight? Next you'll be telling me he had other clever ideas that let him not only evade the first attack, but manage to bring that knight down and go down in history or something! Total nonsense! The best stories are the ones that play out exactly like anyone would guess they would, and the same way they always have before.
|
|
Seriously, why are peasants scared of knights at all? After all, its simply "tactics".Yeah, what kind of crappy story would it make if some clever peasant thought to wait until the last minute and then dive out of the way of a charging knight? Next you'll be telling me he had other clever ideas that let him not only evade the first attack, but manage to bring that knight down and go down in history or something! Total nonsense! The best stories are the ones that play out exactly like anyone would guess they would, and the same way they always have before.
The point isn't story telling. It's why would anyone invest in mounted combat, rideby attack, spirited charge?
On equal investment, defense should always outpace offense. But economy is far skewed when any untrained person can make a trained professional look imbecilic.
To counter this the knight learns Wheeling Charge as well, unfortunately, you have to make 10' of movement in the new direction, so this overrides 4 feats of investment, all at the cost of a standard action.
I'm actually in agreement with you that these tactics should be allowed circumstantially, as I too would like to reserve use to prevent a TPK or tell a good story, but there is nothing I've seen here or in my own research to prevent blatant abuse.
There have been recent comments regarding a Crane style master owning a T-rex regardless of level because to poor dino only has 1 attack... How is this "tactic" better than that one?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is starting to feel a lot like the old "If detect magic's identification of schools includes 'illusion' then you're letting a cantrip invalidate see invisibility!" nonsense.
You say that a tactic available to commoners shouldn't make a trained professional look like an imbecile? I say that someone who can't deal with a guy doing nothing but waiting to jump out of the way is an imbecile.
|
|
I did specify he was a knight, so ummm... nuff said.
There is a lot to be said for people who invest in abilities to actually be able to use them. I have clearly outlined several scenarios where this rule can be considered breaking this economy by anyone.
Charging
Stealthed Opponents
Spring Attack line
I accept your scorn and wit. I appreciate both. Please tell me how I'm wrong.
Another conundrum comes to mind, how would the step up line of feats work since you are still acting on your turn when the other person 5' steps?
Does the 5' of movement count against you next rounds movement (assuming you made a full move to arrive), or this one (losing the standard)? Does the AOO for Step Up and Strike count on the previous round or the following round for the attacker's # of AOO's since it occurred in the middle of the characters action round?
I'm still not saying anyone is wrong, just there seems to be a lot more complications by allowing it than not allowing it.
I'd say with stealth it wouldn't work, wouldn't you have to be aware of the attack to activate the ready action?
|
|
I'd say with stealth it wouldn't work, wouldn't you have to be aware of the attack to activate the ready action?
Thats how I would rule as well, but a readied action is an immediate/interrupt-able action so I'm less sure by RAW. I don't see how its different than interrupting a charging opponent whose attack and movement are combined into one action.
Well you are aware of the charging horse, and wasn't the classic avoidance maneuver dodge out of the way of the horse? That's essentially what this is.
|
|
Well you are aware of the charging horse, and wasn't the classic avoidance maneuver dodge out of the way of the horse? That's essentially what this is.
Sure, pending they wait until the horse is close and then jump for safety, otherwise the horse will steer into you. You still run the risk of getting stabbed by a lance, but by relocating anywhere it foils the charge specific language in Pathfinder regarding making the attack from the nearest possible square if it can connect at all.
Also, consider IRL, its not 100% effective as it is in pathfinder. It should be more akin to total defense, whereas the 5' step is more akin to a bull fighter side stepping with a red cape who never has to fear a charge.
Sure it happens, but its not automatic and failure has deadly consequences.
How often would they be doing this? I'd be bored as hell if my one and only trick was hopping away like a coward all combat.
|
|
Hmmm. If everyone in the PC's party is readying an action to get out of the way, then no one is trying to take down the BBEG. The BBEG could go after someone, and after the first time, assuming a smart BBEG, he could pin them up against walls and the like. It might be frustrating for the GM at first, but there are ways to defeat the tactic as well.
The BBEG might be knowledgeable about who has acted, such as a spellcaster having cast a spell, and go after that one. A melee-only BBEG will have to work for his supper, and I'm all for that situation.
|
|
The 5 foot step to automatically avoid the attack is rules questionable at best. It leads back into some weird timey whimy ball where its reacting to events that haven't happened yet. How exactly it works is a serious gray area of the rules and the DM has more than enough room to say "you 5 foot step back, he steps forward and then takes his attack"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How often would they be doing this? I'd be bored as hell if my one and only trick was hopping away like a coward all combat.
Let me summarize the effects:
"Dex Monkey Trap finder" enters a room first when initiative begins. He wins and immediately readies action (standard and 5' step).
BBEG charges and DMTF interrupts with a readied attack and 5' step. BBEG can no longer attack DMTF because he used a charge (full round action specifically barring 5' step) and DMTF is now 10' away.
Other 5 party members are buffing and ranged shooting minions.
Next round DMTF does the same thing. BBEG 5' steps forward to full round attack, but DMTF again standard attacks and backs up 5'. BBEG sighs and takes another 5' step changing his 5' step into a movement action, so he only gets a standard attack this round.
Buffed party cleans up minions and starts wailing into BBEG.
Summary:
After two rounds of combat BBEG got 1 attack (a standard) while 2 standards have connected vs him. His minions are gone and now he faces 6 buffed opponents.
Some here simply call this tactics. I call it a substandard combat due to abuse of weak game mechanics resulting in a lackluster gaming experience by players who weren't threatened even by the climactic end encounter.
And the real issue? This tactic requires no skill or feats. Its understandable if the Crane Style Monk jumps out there to hold off the BBEG, but a peasant or lvl 1 familiar could have tanked the BBEG for at least 2 rounds with this method. Substitute in an Animal Companion or other disposal HP asset and you have effectively broken the game as there is no risk whatsoever against tanky-type bosses.
|
|
I really think this is a cheesy tactic. Luckily I don't let very generic triggers and actions be used. This would be one of those actions that they are going to have to word carefully and correctly.
If you want to ready an action then trigger has to very clear and specific, and the action that will be taken is very clear and specific.
You can't use vague statement to get a bunch of readied actions which is the biggest problem I see happening.
"I ready to attack an enemy within range" This is not clear and specific.
If you are holding a dagger, that means when they are withing ranged throwing distance. What's an enemy? A mind controlled party member isn't an enemy.
I'm not overly hard on this, but I won't let you make that statement. You need to be a lot more specific.
"I ready a melee attack if any of those kobolds enter a square I threaten." is a much better statement.
How often would they be doing this? I'd be bored as hell if my one and only trick was hopping away like a coward all combat.Let me summarize the effects:
"Dex Monkey Trap finder" enters a room first when initiative begins. He wins and immediately readies action (standard and 5' step).
BBEG charges and DMTF interrupts with a readied attack and 5' step. BBEG can no longer attack DMTF because he used a charge (full round action) even though he has movement left.
Other 5 party members are buffing and ranged shooting minions.
Next round DMTF does the same thing. BBEG 5' steps forward to full round attack, but DMTF again standard attacks and backs up 5'. BBEG sighs and takes another 5' step changing his 5' step into a movement action, so he only gets a standard attack this round.
Buffed party cleans up minions and starts wailing into BBEG.
Summary:
After two rounds of combat BBEG got 1 attack (a standard) while 2 standards have connected vs him. His minions are gone and now he faces 6 buffed opponents.Some here simply call this tactics. I call it a substandard combat due to abuse of weak game mechanics resulting in a lackluster gaming experience by players who weren't threatened even by the climactic end encounter.
And the real issue? This tactic requires no skill or feats. Its understandable if the Crane Style Monk jumps out there to hold off the BBEG, but a peasant or lvl 1 familiar could have tanked the BBEG for at least 2 rounds with this method. Substitute in an Animal Companion or other disposal HP asset and you have effectively broken the game as there is no risk whatsoever against tanky-type bosses.
Stop attacking the dex based trap monkey. Ohhh switchhitter DMTF gets full attacked anywway.
|
|
Stop attacking the dex based trap monkey. Ohhh switchhitter DMTF gets full attacked anywway.
It doesn't matter, by the second round BBEG "could" attack another player by using a movement and standard, but the end result is the same (he still results in 1 standard attack after 2 rounds of combat). Understand most combat is over by round 3 and you see the problem.
P.S. Oh, he also now has a DMTF behind him smiling with glee at his good fortune.