The immortal dancing kobold readies an action to attack you and then five foot step away once you attackYou can only ready a standard action (or a move by downgrading). How are you readying a standard and a 5' step? When your prepped action goes off it is NOT your turn so you cannot take actions which you can normally take on your turn except the 1 standard action you prepped. (you may speak and take immediate actions as normal)
To the OP, I would allow it using the appropriate triggering conditions. Here's my reasoning.
See post above yours. 5 foot stepping is totally legal with a readied standard action. It just has to be with your action in a round - which a readied action qualifies for.
RAW does not support it either way, and both ways are equally reasonable interpretations.
Absurdity, or implied absurdity, does not equal a violation of RAW.
Allowing a creature to change it's mind about what action it's taking, or more importantly, about specific choices involved in that action, in response to a readied action (or AoO, I guess) changing conditions, may sound absurd, but that doesn't make it against RAW.
There is no concept of "declare" or "declared" in Pathfinder. It's not there no matter how much it may mean something to you or not make sense to play without it.
There is no concept of a player committing to a course of action but not have taken it yet. (barring things having to do with falling, or whatever)
There is no concept of: The orc "starts his swing".
Changing your mind in response to a readied action or AoO sounds absurd to some.
Claiming that your character can say "I have the reaction time, without using any abilities whatsoever even though there is something in the game called "dodge bonus to AC", to move at the exact second that the orc has started his swing, and is committed to swinging, but hasn't quite hit me yet - but that orc DOESN'T have the reaction time to realize I'm moving as he starts to attack, so he can't stop himself and just keep moving to attack me in the next square." is equally absurd to others.
Absurdity, or implied absurdity, does not equal a violation of RAW.
Not that I disagree with your general statement (that the rules are basically just broken and don't provide enough to give us an answer), but you absolutely can use Reductio ad absurdum in a rational argument to justify re-interpreting or ignoring a rule. RAA has been used extensively in the past (see: taking actions when you are dead) and I would go so far to say is an essential component of playing within the pathfinder ruleset, given how fluid the wording is in many places.
RAW here can certainly translate to something absurd if taken literally, but that is usually strong grounds to discard it or else weasle the wording into something more acceptable, which is what people are doing in this thread. I doubt you'd find many GMs who let you do time travel shenanigans with readied actions, for example.
|
If I start my action first, but finish after, who is faster?You would be (and of course can logically be) faster, but that's not the issue. The issue is that first phrase of yours: "if I start my action first..."
You misinterpret me.
Party B is the one readying an action. I may start my action first, but if they've readied theirs, they can both react to my action and finish theirs before I've finished mine.
There is no time travel or prescience necessary.
|
Please go read any of the dozen threads on how to shut this tactic down. Its not a real issue against anything but a mindless creature. And is meaningless even for the mindless attacker if he has any allies.
They all either fail to understand whats being said or result in throwing a weapon at someone in round 2.
While true there is no explicit rule on illegal actions, the only sensible course is the attempted action is lost (and cannot be replaced with anything). Again see other threads on this topic where I point out the absurdity of allowing a player to change actions after either a readied action or AoO triggers.
Or not allow ready actions to go in between things that aren't seperated in time.
Changing action? No.
Deciding the targets of the action (or other parameters if the action isn't an attack)? YesExample, I attack A, B is in my reach. A has a ready action and move away, I can still attack B.
or
I charge A, he move away just before I make my attack (let's say that the trigger is "when an enemy get within 10' of me") and place himself in a way that make impossible to complete the charge against him.
It is questionable if I can attack someone that would have been a valid target making the same charge (i.e. following the same path), for sure I can't change my path, but I think no one will object if I continue my move in a straight line to the limit of my movement , as long as all the rules about the movement during a charge are followed.
|
|
See post above yours. 5 foot stepping is totally legal with a readied standard action. It just has to be with your action in a round - which a readied action qualifies for.The immortal dancing kobold readies an action to attack you and then five foot step away once you attackYou can only ready a standard action (or a move by downgrading). How are you readying a standard and a 5' step? When your prepped action goes off it is NOT your turn so you cannot take actions which you can normally take on your turn except the 1 standard action you prepped. (you may speak and take immediate actions as normal)
To the OP, I would allow it using the appropriate triggering conditions. Here's my reasoning.
If you haven't moved and your readied action isn't to move.
Anything with more than one attack can defeat a dancing kobold.
IF true, you need to be sixth level to kill a kobold as a melee combatant?
You absolutely can use Reductio ad Absurdum in a rational argument to justify re-interpreting or ignoring a rule.
Not the way you do it. What you do is a slippery slope following the metalogic rather than the logic itself.
In your example, because of how 5 ft steps work, you can take your own 5ft step and still attack after your opponent 5ft steps.
No, You cannot
Round 1: move up and swing. The kobold stabs you, and then backs up. You've moved, you cannot 5 foot step.
Round 2: There is a 5 foot gap in between you and the kobold. You have to use movement or a 5 foot step to close it. After that the kobold stabs you and then creates another 5 foot gap. You, again, cannot 5 foot step because you either 5 foot stepped or moved to get there.
So, yeah, that doesn't work. If you choose to Move 5 ft (probably via acrobatics) and follow that with a ready action to move away when attacked,
you cannot 5 foot and then ready an action to move.
if the attacker swaps to a ranged weapon your turn was, and will continue to be, wasted.
If you need to pull out a ranged weapon I think I've demonstrated that we've hit absurdity.
If we hit absurdity, thats probably not the best way to handle a gray area of the rules.
You absolutely can use Reductio ad Absurdum in a rational argument to justify re-interpreting or ignoring a rule.Not the way you do it. What you do is a slippery slope following the metalogic rather than the logic itself.
Welcome to Crimeo. I gave up banging my head against that brick wall.
|
|
PRD says : "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."
That condition is not necessarily an action. It can be an action's result for example.
You missed the next sentence:
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.
Actually, I left it out on purpose because I felt it muddied the waters and would focus people on the false idea that readied actions always happen in response to an action while they can clearly happen in response to any set of conditions.
Way I read it, because it is the only way that makes sense to me, is that IF your readied action is triggered by a specific action (rather than say by an action's results), then it occurs before the action that triggers it.
Except for spellcasting which is an explicit exception to this rule (readied action occurs during the casting).
RAW does not support it either way, and both ways are equally reasonable interpretations.
Absurdity, or implied absurdity, does not equal a violation of RAW.
No, but absurdity in a gray area means "don't do it this way"
Or not allow ready actions to go in between things that aren't seperated in time.
I don't know if we are talking past each other, or....
When you say the above I think, "I agree with that". But the fact that you say it in response to my post makes me wonder if you have a different idea of what "between things that aren't seperated in time." than I do.
Can you give some examples of things that you believe are not separated in time?
My example would be:
If I make a successful attack roll (e.g, I beat your AC), then barring a specific feat (like crane wing) then a successful attack and damage dealt are not separated in time.
Or if I complete the casting of a spell, the completion of the spell and the effect of the spell are not separated in time.
Kobold readiesBarbarian moves up
Barbarian starts swing. Ready action goes off. Kobold attack and 5 foot steps. Barbarians action is wasted.
Kobolds turn again, just before the barbarian. Kobold readies.
If the barbarian 5 foot steps and attempts a swing, the kobold attacks and 5 foot steps and the kobold is stuck
If the barbarian just walks the 5 feet he has begun his move action and ended it when he swings , he's out of actions and can't 5 foot step either because he moved or because he already 5 foot stepped.
If the barbarian just moves twice, the kobold never does anything, and jkust stands there while the bard plays "can you feel the love tonight" In the background.
AC is supposed to determine hits and misses in this system not player cheekiness.
You missed how to get around it without using ranged weapons, but I'll explain it here.
Round 1:
Kobold readies.
Barbarian moves in an attacks.
Kobold attacks and 5' steps.
Barbarian attack wasted.
Round 2:
Kobold Readies.
Barbarian moves, and readies to attack if kobold doesn't surrender on his turn.
Kobold's turn comes up, his readied action is now gone, it was wasted. If kobold takes any action but surrendering barbarian attacks the kobold.
The key is to not follow the same process that resulted in the outcome you don't like - definition of insanity and all that.
There are alternate ways you could do round 2 as well.
Round 2:
Kobold Readies.
Barbarian moves, and readies to attack if kobold moves.
Kobold's turn comes up, his readied action is now gone, kobold tries the same tactic again and readies to attack and 5' step if attacked.
Barbarian attacks.
Kobold attacks and 5' steps.
Barbarian 5' steps and completes his attack.
For consideration: If you think a dragon is going to breathe fire on you, you need a Sense Motive with a readied action to flee in a particular way before the dragon acts. If the Sense Motive fails then you either run inappropriately when he isn't actually attacking, or you stay and burn from a bad guess.
There is no such rule for this. Now a GM has the right to declare that determining when a dragon is going to use its breath weapon is not something obvious - but such a rule is not written within the actual text.
But let's make it a little more clear with a different example.
A wizard casting a spell is an obvious occurrence (especially if you have spellcraft). No sense motive required. No requirement to even determine what spell is being cast (though useful to decide if you care about its possible effect on you). You can ready to action to move if he starts casting a spell. If you can't get out of line of effect, range of the spell, whatever, it may not do you any good, but the option is plainly there.
Or not allow ready actions to go in between things that aren't seperated in time.
I don't know if we are talking past each other, or....
When you say the above I think, "I agree with that". But the fact that you say it in response to my post makes me wonder if you have a different idea of what "between things that aren't seperated in time." than I do.
Can you give some examples of things that you believe are not separated in time?
Not really. I have more of a guideline than a rule for this really.
If you cause a timey whimey ball its probably not allowed
If you replace class abilities and game mechanics with initiative shennanigans its probably not allowed.
This is not going to please the raw is law crowd because there is no raw covering this. you HAVE to rely on something else. Fairness and balance are as good a guide as anything else.
If I make a successful attack roll (e.g, I beat your AC), then barring a specific feat (like crane wing) then a successful attack and damage dealt are not separated in time.
I seem to have a much stricter view of this than you do. I would count 5 foot stepping up to you and swinging at the same time as the same thing: not out of any real devotion for the raw but just because of what happens if you don't.
Foiling the attack roll is a HUGE part of the game. Its the job of one of the most important stats in the game: AC and to a lesser extent concealment mirror image and the like. Completely preventing even the possibility of being hit by an attack was too strong for crane wing. Being able to do this with an opposed roll is the strongest ability in the swashbuckler class. Doing it with NO feat investment, no class investment, and doing it even better than those other mechanical options because of a gray area in the rules is the sort of thing a DM is supposed to be putting the kybosh on.
Foiling the attack roll is a HUGE part of the game. Its the job of one of the most important stats in the game: AC and to a lesser extent concealment mirror image and the like. Completely preventing even the possibility of being hit by an attack was too strong for crane wing. Being able to do this with an opposed roll is the strongest ability in the swashbuckler class. Doing it with NO feat investment, no class investment, and doing it even better than those other mechanical options because of a gray area in the rules is the sort of thing a DM is supposed to be putting the kybosh on.
Your making a gamble on this though. You are depending on your opponent to take a specific action that you are trying to foil. If he doesn't take that action you lost your entire turn. The barbarian making the reckless charge "must kill" is a good guess for the kobold, but not a guarantee.
I would count 5 foot stepping up to you and swinging at the same time as the same thing
Fair enough. I personally wouldn't follow that for this reasoning:
I'm in melee range with a bow. I 5' step and shoot, if the 5' step and shooting is part and parcel of the same action, am I subject to an AoO or not? I understand its easy to favor the acting player in this, but its this sort of thing that to me says they should indeed be treated as separate events.
Or my enemy has step up. I go to 5' step and cast a spell. I 5' step, he follows, I'm not committed to casting my spell, I can choose something else at this point. My intent was move away, then safely cast my spell. The result was I moved, then realize I'm not safe like I intended, so I better do something else. If they are one and the same action, you'd be committed to the spell.
|
|
Kobold readiesBarbarian moves up
Barbarian starts swing. Ready action goes off. Kobold attack and 5 foot steps. Barbarians action is wasted.
Kobolds turn again, just before the barbarian. Kobold readies.
If the barbarian 5 foot steps and attempts a swing, the kobold attacks and 5 foot steps and the kobold is stuck
If the barbarian just walks the 5 feet he has begun his move action and ended it when he swings , he's out of actions and can't 5 foot step either because he moved or because he already 5 foot stepped.
If the barbarian just moves twice, the kobold never does anything, and jkust stands there while the bard plays "can you feel the love tonight" In the background.
AC is supposed to determine hits and misses in this system not player cheekiness.
You missed how to get around it without using ranged weapons, but I'll explain it here.
Round 1:
Kobold readies.
Barbarian moves in an attacks.
Kobold attacks and 5' steps.
Barbarian attack wasted.Round 2:
Kobold Readies.
Barbarian moves, and readies to attack if kobold doesn't surrender on his turn.
Kobold's turn comes up, his readied action is now gone, it was wasted. If kobold takes any action but surrendering barbarian attacks the kobold.The key is to not follow the same process that resulted in the outcome you don't like - definition of insanity and all that.
There are alternate ways you could do round 2 as well.
Round 2:
Kobold Readies.
Barbarian moves, and readies to attack if kobold moves.
Kobold's turn comes up, his readied action is now gone, kobold tries the same tactic again and readies to attack and 5' step if attacked.
Barbarian attacks.
Kobold attacks and 5' steps.
Barbarian 5' steps and completes his attack.
"Barbarian moves, and readies to attack if kobold doesn't surrender on his turn."
Not a valid trigger, AFAIK, it is based on meta knowledge, not in game events. For what the character know there isn't a "turn or round" so you can't base the action on that mechanic.
There is a second thinks that make that choice invalid: you react to something happening, not to a negative, i.e. something not happening.
The alternative way work perfectly.
"Barbarian moves, and readies to attack if kobold doesn't surrender on his turn."
Not a valid trigger, AFAIK, it is based on meta knowledge, not in game events. For what the character know there isn't a "turn or round" so you can't base the action on that mechanic.
There is a second thinks that make that choice invalid: you react to something happening, not to a negative, i.e. something not happening.The alternative way work perfectly.
You may not like my exact choice of wording, but the concept is sound.
"Put your hands in the air slowly or we shoot." is essentially the same thing as readied action on anything but surrender, and certainly doesn't have any metagame concepts as it is a real world phrase.
There is a second thinks that make that choice invalid: you react to something happening, not to a negative, i.e. something not happening.
Disagree on this.
To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it.
Is the kobold not surrendering a condition that could occur?
Other examples, "If he casts anything but a healing spell I attack him". This is another negative, but perfectly valid (assuming I can make the spellcraft check).
|
|
Foiling the attack roll is a HUGE part of the game. Its the job of one of the most important stats in the game: AC and to a lesser extent concealment mirror image and the like. Completely preventing even the possibility of being hit by an attack was too strong for crane wing. Being able to do this with an opposed roll is the strongest ability in the swashbuckler class. Doing it with NO feat investment, no class investment, and doing it even better than those other mechanical options because of a gray area in the rules is the sort of thing a DM is supposed to be putting the kybosh on.
Your making a gamble on this though. You are depending on your opponent to take a specific action that you are trying to foil. If he doesn't take that action you lost your entire turn. The barbarian making the reckless charge "must kill" is a good guess for the kobold, but not a guarantee.
I would count 5 foot stepping up to you and swinging at the same time as the same thing
Fair enough. I personally wouldn't follow that for this reasoning:
I'm in melee range with a bow. I 5' step and shoot, if the 5' step and shooting is part and parcel of the same action, am I subject to an AoO or not? I understand its easy to favor the acting player in this, but its this sort of thing that to me says they should indeed be treated as separate events.
Or my enemy has step up. I go to 5' step and cast a spell. I 5' step, he follows, I'm not committed to casting my spell, I can choose something else at this point. My intent was move away, then safely cast my spell. The result was I moved, then realize I'm not safe like I intended, so I better do something else. If they are one and the same action, you'd be committed to the spell.
@BBN, I agree with bbangerter, there are a lot of things in the game that will develop problems if a 5' step is part of the action in which you use it.
If you want to limit the usefulness of the ready action in this situation you can ask for a more precise trigger or action.Instead of "If someone attack me with a melee attack I will attack him and then, possibly take a 5' step away from him" you could require the trigger to be:
"If (specific character/creature) come close to me and attack me with a melee". That alone require the guy using this tactic to guess who will attack him and stop it from working if the attacker use a reach weapon.
More of a stretch but you can require him to specify beforehand in which direction he is moving.
Your making a gamble on this though. You are depending on your opponent to take a specific action that you are trying to foil. If he doesn't take that action you lost your entire turn. The barbarian making the reckless charge "must kill" is a good guess for the kobold, but not a guarantee.
The game really doesn't have all that many viable options, particularly for melee. You kinda know what they're going to do.
I would count 5 foot stepping up to you and swinging at the same time as the same thing
Fair enough. I personally wouldn't follow that for this reasoning:
I'm in melee range with a bow. I 5' step and shoot, if the 5' step and shooting is part and parcel of the same action, am I subject to an AoO or not? I understand its easy to favor the acting player in this, but its this sort of thing that to me says they should indeed be treated as separate events.
Slight difference: when you 5 foot step and shoot you are not readying. You can 5 foot step and THEN shoot at your own pace (and probably should you'll live longer)
Or my enemy has step up. I go to 5' step and cast a spell. I 5' step, he follows, I'm not committed to casting my spell, I can choose something else at this point. My intent was move away, then safely cast my spell. The result was I moved, then realize I'm not safe like I intended, so I better do something else. If they are one and the same action, you'd be committed to the spell.
Remember the ruling i'm talking about sits behind a piece of glass labled "use only in case of timey whimey ball". No timey whimey ball? Then i'm not worrying about it. I'm well aware that this isn't consistent but no other way of doing it is particularly workable. As I'm running a game not laws of physics workability is far more important to me.
|
|
"Barbarian moves, and readies to attack if kobold doesn't surrender on his turn."
Not a valid trigger, AFAIK, it is based on meta knowledge, not in game events. For what the character know there isn't a "turn or round" so you can't base the action on that mechanic.
There is a second thinks that make that choice invalid: you react to something happening, not to a negative, i.e. something not happening.The alternative way work perfectly.
You may not like my exact choice of wording, but the concept is sound.
"Put your hands in the air slowly or we shoot." is essentially the same thing as readied action on anything but surrender, and certainly doesn't have any metagame concepts as it is a real world phrase.
There is a second thinks that make that choice invalid: you react to something happening, not to a negative, i.e. something not happening.
Disagree on this.
Is the kobold not surrendering a condition that could occur?
To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it.
Under the constraint of "in his turn" it isn't a valid trigger. You are using a gaming mechanic that don't exist in the character world.
Without the "in his turn" limit you don't have a trigger.Your example "Put your hands in the air slowly or we shoot." would be an invalid in game trigger. Too open ended.
A valid trigger would in that situation would be "if he draw a weapon" or "if he attack someone".
Any "if he don't do X" trigger is too open ended for a ready action.
Diego Rossi
You probably missed my edit before making your last post, so I'll requote it here as another example of a valid negative.
Other examples, "If he casts anything but a healing spell I attack him". This is another negative, but perfectly valid (assuming I can make the spellcraft check).
Under the constraint of "in his turn" it isn't a valid trigger.
Sure, but your merely being nit picky about my exact language.
Any "if he don't do X" trigger is too open ended for a ready action.
Still disagree.
From robocop:
"Drop your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply." Now aside the faulty programming of the robot, that was certainly a valid condition that is completely open ended.
Diego, you're trying to invalidate an entirely possible choice because it's not very explicitly covered in the rules. A great number of things are not explicitly covered but clearly can happen. This reminds me of an argument I got into when somebody said it was impossible to cut off a limb in Pathfinder because there are no rules for it, saying that instead any damage just accumulates to their collective HP bar like a video game. Readying an action for a negative is totally acceptable as long as you put a time limit on it.
"If the kobold does anything that is not surrendering, I shoot him."
Perfectly valid, way I see it :-)
Agreed.
If he tries to attack, I shoot him. If he tries to retreat, I shoot him. If he tries to cast a spell, I shoot him. If he stands there and does nothing, I shoot him. Pretty easy logic to follow.
When I GM, I wouldn't allow you to "ready a move action" to avoid rolling a save (which is what is sounds like you're trying to set up). That's what the Reflex save is for. You either manage to dodge it, or part of it, or not. Saving throws take into consideration the fact that a character would do whatever they could to avoid an effect. To allow a readied move action like this seems a bad precedent to set, and the places where it might be allowable should be rare.
Just for reference for those who may jump in:
I know that, i was thinking about situation where we talk to dragon and while our "face" talking can i ready an action to leap away in case dragon gonna breath at us (since readied action resolves before the action that triggered it).
I will go with my DMs judgment, but wonder about opinions of other experienced people.
I would allow a readied action to move out of way, since it means the character won't be able to attack. The caveat, if you ready an action, "I move if the dragon uses it's breath weapon." and the dragon casts a spell, Fireball, you won't get your readied action. If you ready the action, "I move when he casts Fireball.", you'll be making a spellcraft check even if you guessed correctly.
I would not allow the action to be readied in situations outside of combat. If you're talking to the dragon, you're not in combat yet. No readied actions.
As far as the actual original post? I'd lean towards 'yes'. But as mentioned, the targeting happens after the action triggers. It reminds me of a Three Stooges gag.
Larry readies the action: 'If Moe attacks me with a pie, I duck.'
Moe rears back to throw pie.
Larry ducks.
Moe ducks and splats Larry.
As far as the dancing kobold? If he's readying that action each round, he's not attacking. So it'd probably go:
Round 2.
Kobold readies while standing 10' away.
Barbarian draws thrown weapon and chucks in kobold's face.
Or:
Barbarian starts herding kobold into wall/corner.
The dancing kobold strategy does make sense, but there's counters to it too.
|
|
Diego Rossi
You probably missed my edit before making your last post, so I'll requote it here as another example of a valid negative.
Other examples, "If he casts anything but a healing spell I attack him". This is another negative, but perfectly valid (assuming I can make the spellcraft check).
Sure, but your merely being nit picky about my exact language.
Under the constraint of "in his turn" it isn't a valid trigger.
You are using infinite-1 triggers. Let's make proposed trigger into positive triggers. What you propose translate into:
I will take action X if:
- he draw a weapon,
or
- he attack,
or
- he move,
or
- he speak,
or
- he move his let arm,
or
- he yawn,
or
-he pick his nose,
or
....
We can continue for several thousand rows without listing all the conditions that will trigger your ready action.
If you think that the ready action can be triggered by several thousands of different conditions in one go, feel free to play that way, but that isn't how most of the people play.
"If the kobold does anything that is not surrendering, I shoot him."
Perfectly valid, way I see it :-)
Agreed.
If he tries to attack, I shoot him. If he tries to retreat, I shoot him. If he tries to cast a spell, I shoot him. If he stands there and does nothing, I shoot him. Pretty easy logic to follow.
So for you infinite -1 triggers is a valid choice?
If it work that way, my ready action is "if someone is breathing I will take action X". As I am not forced to take my action the first time it trigger I can take it at any time (barring very peculiar circumstances).
Note that, as silly as my trigger is, it at least has an action as a trigger, yours don't. The trigger is the exact opposite. A non action.
Yup. A perfectly valid choice. Makes sense.
Who cares how hard it would be to program into a system? We're not coding a program or making a game, we're playing a tabletop and it's obvious how the readied action would work.
Yup. A perfectly valid choice. Makes sense.
Who cares how hard it would be to program into a system? We're not coding a program or making a game, we're playing a tabletop and it's obvious how the readied action would work.
Well, for certain values of 'obvious' -- how long is this thread again?
I do remember (in a different system) running afoul of the 'I attack if they don't surrender' mechanic. My swordsskunk (it was a heavily cartoon-flavoured setting) was facing off against some foes, and she demanded their surrender or she'd disarm them. When it was her time again, they hadn't, so slashings happened. Then the GM noted to me that she was just that fast that the foes didn't have *time* to respond to her demands. Oops.
Still, the discussion tends to hinge on these fun corner cases. (So named from those wonderful rows about reach weapons and corner squares.)
That just sounds like poor handling of the situation from the GMs end.
Readying an action preempts the trigger, and changes the initiative order. The idea of time itself is not directly addressed by the rules. I would assume any argument based on "timing" is probably wrong. The correct answer is that the readied action goes first, the triggering event goes second. If the triggering event is an action, it is handled normally.
Thus, for instance, a dragon whose breath weapon triggered the move must use its breath weapon. It can target it as it sees fit, it can decide to discharge it uselessly, but it is taking the action, and its use is expended.
I think the dragon does still have the option of not using its action, since you can generally opt not to take a readied action. The problem with doing that is that is that you have lost the action -- you cannot decide to take the action later when the trigger occurs again. So it would be perfectly valid for the dragon to start to use its breath weapon, realize that it has no targets, and decide to do nothing rather than literally waste its breath.
I think the dragon does still have the option of not using its action, since you can generally opt not to take a readied action.
The dragon was not the one with the readied action being discussed.
The problem with doing that is that is that you have lost the action -- you cannot decide to take the action later when the trigger occurs again.
Rules citation needed.
I see nothing in the ready action rules that you must choose to use your action (and only have the choice) on the first time the condition occurs.
If fact it seems to leave it quite open to choosing your time.
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.
Did the condition occur? If yes, you may take your action. If you don't, does the condition occur again before your next turn? If yes, you may take your action. Ad nasuem.
This would make it similar to an AoO. If someone provokes 5 AoO's from you in their turn (and you don't have combat reflexes) you aren't required to take the first, second, third, etc. You can choose which of those you want to take. Of course you won't know if more are going to be provoked, so you risk not getting any at all if you don't take the first.
So it would be perfectly valid for the dragon to start to use its breath weapon, realize that it has no targets, and decide to do nothing rather than literally waste its breath.
The rules may be a bit more strict than that.
Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.
Nothing in there about aborting an action in progress.
For example, taking a readied action to attack a spell caster (or counter spell them), you certainly wouldn't let the caster decide not to cast (and therefore save their prepared spell). That resource was spent the moment you started that action. Does that apply to other things like drinking a potion, activating a wand, using a per day ability? The rules aren't quite clear on that.
I would allow the readied action. You're still going to have to make the save because the explosion/aoe/ etc. is going to happen before you can move an inch.
I think the dragon does still have the option of not using its action, since you can generally opt not to take a readied action. The problem with doing that is that is that you have lost the action -- you cannot decide to take the action later when the trigger occurs again. So it would be perfectly valid for the dragon to start to use its breath weapon, realize that it has no targets, and decide to do nothing rather than literally waste its breath.
This is true for readied actions but there is no explicit rule that this is how most actions function.
I think the dragon does still have the option of not using its action, since you can generally opt not to take a readied action.
It's not a readied action, and by definition, the triggering action has already occurred.
Developer
|
Were I the GM in this situation, as an off-the-cuff ruling I would let the character move with the readied action. However, I'm not entirely comfortable with a readied action being the substitute for a saving throw, so I would instead give the PC the benefits of evasion (or the equivalent for a Fortitude or Will save) for the effect. If the PC already had evasion, I'd give'em improved evasion or a bonus on the save as appropriate.
As a turn-based game, Pathfinder RPG can sometimes present some strange strategies that result from the mechanic of taking turns. Hopefully this kind of compromise would be amenable to both the GM and the players.
From robocop:
"Drop your weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply." Now aside the faulty programming of the robot, that was certainly a valid condition that is completely open ended.
That has two trigger clauses (20 seconds and resisting arrest) and one action (shoot) which I'm fine with.
Thanks John, it's always nice to hear a developers thoughts on an issue!
I just feel that it would be highly unfair. If I'm out of range then I spent my entire turn to dodge the breath weapon. It's kinda like total defending and then moving into position, I'm spending my entire turn to not get hit. And if I was still in range I'd still get hit and have wasted my turn for nothing. Anything less and I'd feel the GM was breaking rules.
Were I the GM in this situation, as an off-the-cuff ruling I would let the character move with the readied action. However, I'm not entirely comfortable with a readied action being the substitute for a saving throw, so I would instead give the PC the benefits of evasion (or the equivalent for a Fortitude or Will save) for the effect. If the PC already had evasion, I'd give'em improved evasion or a bonus on the save as appropriate.
As a turn-based game, Pathfinder RPG can sometimes present some strange strategies that result from the mechanic of taking turns. Hopefully this kind of compromise would be amenable to both the GM and the players.
The problem is that readied actions are meant to act as interrupt for actions that take place a lot slower than the boom of an explosion. I'd allow the move, but the player still has to deal with the explosion first with standard saves applying. That's the whole idea of the reflex save after all, can you dodge fast enough?
|
|
Were I the GM in this situation, as an off-the-cuff ruling I would let the character move with the readied action. However, I'm not entirely comfortable with a readied action being the substitute for a saving throw, so I would instead give the PC the benefits of evasion (or the equivalent for a Fortitude or Will save) for the effect. If the PC already had evasion, I'd give'em improved evasion or a bonus on the save as appropriate.
As a turn-based game, Pathfinder RPG can sometimes present some strange strategies that result from the mechanic of taking turns. Hopefully this kind of compromise would be amenable to both the GM and the players.
You think that a open ended trigger like "if he don't do X" is a valid trigger?
I just feel that it would be highly unfair. If I'm out of range then I spent my entire turn to dodge the breath weapon. It's kinda like total defending and then moving into position, I'm spending my entire turn to not get hit. And if I was still in range I'd still get hit and have wasted my turn for nothing. Anything less and I'd feel the GM was breaking rules.
There are no rules for this situation for the d.m.to break
You think that a open ended trigger like "if he don't do X" is a valid trigger?
Were I the GM in this situation, as an off-the-cuff ruling I would let the character move with the readied action. However, I'm not entirely comfortable with a readied action being the substitute for a saving throw, so I would instead give the PC the benefits of evasion (or the equivalent for a Fortitude or Will save) for the effect. If the PC already had evasion, I'd give'em improved evasion or a bonus on the save as appropriate.
As a turn-based game, Pathfinder RPG can sometimes present some strange strategies that result from the mechanic of taking turns. Hopefully this kind of compromise would be amenable to both the GM and the players.
What? How did his comment imply that at all? He simply said how he would rule for somebody holding an action to react to a breath weapon.