# Kiting with 5' Steps???

### Rules Questions

 51 to 100 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
The tactic of sidestepping 5ft could work against a charging opponent.

Now wait a second:

Earlier, Nefreet wrote:
your ready goes off before my action.

Charging is a single, full-round action.

So the readied action to 5ft step to the side when the charger gets in range will, according to your own explanations earlier in the thread, happen before the full-round action made to charge.

I think there might be a flaw in your logic, Nefreet.

That's not what we were talking about.

The specific argument in this thread is readying before an attack roll is being made.

Not "readying if they charge".

I am slightly confused by this argument, it mentions multiple readied actions (Attack AND 5ft step), i thought you were allowed only one readied action a turn because they take your standard to ready each one? Also, i fail to see what is confusing about readying an action to step out of reach when they try to attack you,

You Ready Action to 5ft Step Away When They Attack You
You Lose Standard Action Readying Action
End Turn Eventually
They Move Up to You
They Attempt to Attack
Readied Action Activates, you are now out of reach
Their Attack Fails Because of Readied Action Putting You Out of Reach
They Lose That Attack

Can somebody explain why this is so gamebreaking? it is essentially saying "i know an attack is going to come that i need to dodge, so i spend my standard preparing so i can dodge it"

 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Nefreet wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
The tactic of sidestepping 5ft could work against a charging opponent.

Now wait a second:

Earlier, Nefreet wrote:
your ready goes off before my action.

Charging is a single, full-round action.

So the readied action to 5ft step to the side when the charger gets in range will, according to your own explanations earlier in the thread, happen before the full-round action made to charge.

I think there might be a flaw in your logic, Nefreet.

That's not what we were talking about.

The specific argument in this thread is readying before an attack roll is being made.

Not "readying if they charge".

Maybe I'm just confused, but that sounds like it meshes with what I'm saying.

You were talking about readying on the condition of them attacking, right?

So they charge, they get up to you as part of the charge's movement, and they would attack... but then your readied action goes off, and, according to you, it goes off before the charge action happens.

What did I miss?

It's game breaking because it allows anyone with a held action to outright negate attacks..."just because".
It's not the way defending yourself is depicted in pathfinder anyway. Using a standard action to defend yourself is a "Total defense" action that gives you a dodge bonus to AC.
In short it's game breaking because the result is far better than the system "intends".

I've seen people try this kind of thing. It's not game-breaking. It never works consistently, only in certain special situations that are not reliably repeatable. This approach is usually inferior to 'total defense'.

A held action does not negate an attack. The attacker can just keep on moving and deliver their attack 5' further along. It only 'negates' the attack if the attacker is nearly out of movement, by forcing them to double-move to get at you.

This tactic basically amounts to, "I ready an action to run away if it tries to get me." Nothing wrong with that. Sometimes it even works.

Magda Luckbender wrote:
...The attacker can just keep on moving and deliver their attack 5' further along. It only 'negates' the attack if the attacker is nearly out of movement, by forcing them to double-move to get at you...

This confuses me, they already finished their move action and began their attack action, how can they move?

Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Magda Luckbender wrote:

A held action does not negate an attack. The attacker can just keep on moving and deliver their attack 5' further along. It only 'negates' the attack if the attacker is nearly out of movement, by forcing them to double-move to get at you.

Except that is assuming that you can finish a move once your attack action has been interrupted.

I'm not saying I wouldn't play it that way but it seems like RAW, readying an action against an attack would allow you to 'dodge' it and force them to lose two actions (the move to get to you and the standard to attack you).

I think it's a little bizarre you can ready an action for something that isn't totally noticeable, like an attack starting or movement finishing.

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
So they charge, they get up to you as part of the charge's movement, and they would attack... but then your readied action goes off, and, according to you, it goes off before the charge attack action happens.

Readying if they charge, and readying if they attack, are 2 separate things.

Komoda wrote:
Except that he has declared his actions, and while I agree with you, a lot of people do not.

Fair call. I guess that boils down to whether you have to declare exactly how far you are moving and where to before you move, or whether you declare in 5ft increments. I couldn't really find anything to suggest either way in the rules text, although the latter interpretation seems to cause fewer issues more generally.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I ready an action to attack someone as they are casting a spell, would any of you guys let that person 'change their action' and move after I successfully damaged them?

How is readying an action if someone attacks with a melee weapon any different?

 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Nefreet wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
So they charge, they get up to you as part of the charge's movement, and they would attack... but then your readied action goes off, and, according to you, it goes off before the charge attack action happens.
Readying if they charge, and readying if they attack, are 2 separate things.

Uh, even if I ready against an attack, the action they used to produce that attack is still (in this example) the charge action. Charge is not an assembly of separate actions. The guy who charges me never makes the "attack action" that you've inserted into the quote box, only the charge action.

If you move to them and try to attack, but their readied action makes them someplace else before you attack, of course you can keep moving! The rules are silent on this, but common sense must rule. If we don't allow this then, like Larkspire says, this trick becomes a 100% effective exploit.

There are two possible rules interpretations. One interpretation leads to an absurd situation. The other interpretation does not. It's pretty clear which one you should go with. 'Nuff said.

It's only 100% effective if you keep doing the same thing. Should we ban all tactics that are effective against a particular sequence of actions?

Counter-tactic, move up to the person and don't attack. Then, next round attack with your own 5-step as necessary. Voila, defeated.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Shoot him, problem solved.

Those that live by the sword (hammer) get shot by those that don't.

As pointed out, this tactic rarely works but the concept works just fine. Lunge is a thing (which just about anything should have after BAB+6).

While some of us may disagree on whether you can resume a move action that you have ended (I am in the "you can't" camp), even if you cannot resume the move action this will only work once in a 1v1 battle. After that, they backpedal and shoot you in the face or they charge or do anything even remotely intelligent.

This will only work in 1v1 battles with stupid things that are not a real encounter anyhow.

Magda Luckbender wrote:

If you move to them and try to attack, but their readied action makes them someplace else before you attack, of course you can keep moving! The rules are silent on this, but common sense must rule. If we don't allow this then, like Larkspire says, this trick becomes a 100% effective exploit.

There are two possible rules interpretations. One interpretation leads to an absurd situation. The other interpretation does not. It's pretty clear which one you should go with. 'Nuff said.

Neither interpretation leads to an absurd situation. If you think this is a problem your view of tactics is far too limited. One is obviously more within the rules as written, though.

Komoda wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
He can ready a move action if he wants to get further away. Although, if he did include a 5 ft step as part of his readied action, the 5 ft step would not provoke (they never do). I think the best think to do would be ready action to 5 ft step towards the monster and attack, when it is 10 ft away. PC gets an attack, and monster is adjacent to his enemy carrying s reach weapon. If the monster wants to continue using his move action so he can back up and attack, he will provoke can attack from the PC.
In this scenario the PC still only gets to move on his turn. (you can only ready an action, you can't ready both an action AND a move) So unless his AOO dropped the monster, it's still going to get it's attacks, including pounce if it has it before the PC can make his 5 foot move.

The PC can make a 5' step as part of a readied action.

10 PC readies an action that triggers when the creature enters an adjacent square.
20 Creature moves in gets hit by AoO for leaving a threatened square.
30 Readied action is triggered.
40 PC takes a 5' step and attacks. (Now 10' away).
50 PC is out of range and the creature is out of options.
60 If creature hit points >0 goto 10 else goto 70.
70 Celebrate and move to next target.
80 End.

I absolutely hate this tactic. It is nothing more than gaming the system. My players and I have all agreed that it is not a valid option at our table. YMMV.

It is actually a bad tactic unless the party is facing one medium sized monster. But in that case he is likely to die a quick death anyway.

_Ozy_ wrote:

If I ready an action to attack someone as they are casting a spell, would any of you guys let that person 'change their action' and move after I successfully damaged them?

How is readying an action if someone attacks with a melee weapon any different?

This is how I see it also. I am not seeing the issue.

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
So they charge, they get up to you as part of the charge's movement, and they would attack... but then your readied action goes off, and, according to you, it goes off before the charge attack action happens.
Readying if they charge, and readying if they attack, are 2 separate things.
Uh, even if I ready against an attack, the action they used to produce that attack is still (in this example) the charge action. Charge is not an assembly of separate actions. The guy who charges me never makes the "attack action" that you've inserted into the quote box, only the charge action.

If I charge you, and you have Fire Shield active, do I take damage?

I don't see how you can move, decide to attack, and then because your Attack didn't work decide to just continue the movement.

I think the charge action and casting a spell both provide good examples of why interpreting it the other way (that you can just continue doing your old action) doesn't make any sense.

TBH it really doesn't seem that broken (if at all). It has also been said that this really only works on some specific situations. Could it theoretically be used to permanently stop something that is medium sized (with no reach) that has no alternative but try and poke you with a metal object? Yeah. But there are a lot of ifs, I just don't see it being a practical problem.

Just my thoughts.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:

If I ready an action to attack someone as they are casting a spell, would any of you guys let that person 'change their action' and move after I successfully damaged them?

How is readying an action if someone attacks with a melee weapon any different?

Nothing personal Ozy as you are by far not the only one to use this example, but this is the worst argument on the forums. It is specifically called out as an exception to the normal rules.

CRB p206 Concentration: Injury wrote:
The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between the time you started and the time you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).
CRB p203 Ready wrote:

The action occurs just before the action

that triggers it.
CRB p180 Making an Attack of Opportunity wrote:
If an attack of opportunity is provoked, immediately resolve the attack of opportunity, then continue with the next character’s turn (or complete the current turn, if the attack of opportunity was provoked in the midst of a character’s turn).
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Wow, folks,

I am kinda amazed that this is still raging on. I have skimmed the posts from my ruling till now and most of them seem to be focused around a gamist argument, which I can understand. The time issue really is just to keep matters simple (as many have pointed out). Technically, the AoO occurs as the event that provokes it is taking place, but since we can't have "middle ground" conditions, they are pushed to before to keep things straightforward. This is the only way it makes sense for spellcasting, movement, and, in this case, standing up and trip.

Whether or not triplock is too powerful is mostly irrelevant. I personally believe it is too good if the "in combat" cost is an AoO, but probably ok if it burns and action to pull off. Fortunately for my opinion, the rules support this as well, and have done so since the 3.5 ruling on this same issue.
Moving along folks.. keep it civil. I'll check back in later.
Jason Bulmahn
Paizo Publishing

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

It keeps going and going and going....
Anywho,

As it concerns consistency and casting spells and AoOs: The concentration check is a specifically called exception to the chain of events. So while the AoO occurs before the spell is completed (and technically before the action), the exception allows it have an effect on whether or not the spell is completed. No such exception exists for tripping, disarming, or moving, unless other game rules would dictate a interruption (such as going unconscious).

Moving along...
Jason Bulmahn
Paizo Publishing

Excellent post Komoda. Rules and Bulmahn quotes; it doesn't get any better than that.

Argument closed.

(except, well, of course it won't be closed cuz internetz)

This similar argument came up before. Basically you can't do "take backs" with actions by the rules. The problem is that readied action says "before", but it actually interrupts an action. You can't however interrupt something that has not happened yet, so really in the game you are effectively taking your action in the middle of their action.

Basically you as a GM can choose to honor the word "before" or you can actually treat it like it is interrupting an action.

Also Komoda has done nothing to support "take backs" which are against RAI as shown by Jason saying your "effectively" going in the middle of the action. Maybe we need an FAQ on "take backs" to wrap this up.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

it's still not that a hard tactic to beat. unless your mobs are all unthinking animals (and they still can use option 2)
option 1:
a monster with 15 reach. problem solved.
option 2:
more then one mob attack said target and when they move in do it as a 5 ft move so never give an aoo.
option 3:
acrobatics(man my pc HATE ninjas)
option 4: overrun+improved overrun = no aoo from him(the overrun action include the movment part. since you can't provoke more then once for an action and improved overrun rule you dont provoke for overrun yo udont provoke for movment you do while using overrun). let the mosnter trip him and see if he can get up again ;)
option 4:
range attack, no need to invest in str composite bows. a simple chakram will carry al lthe force of the monster attack with it and has 30 ft range.(and cost 1 gp so they can keep a stock of them)
there aare more options but these should get your players to start considering more thn one trick.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

So rather than debating this topic...AGAIN, how about FAQing the thread here: FAQ request regarding interrupted actions, AoOs, and readied actions

DinosaursOnIce wrote:
Malag wrote:

Jiggy,

The charger can continue to "connect" the charge even though you readied action to 5 ft. step away. This is all happening in the same round. There are circumstances though if you 5 ft. step behind cover which might block the charge in that case.

@Sjark
This entire tactic is fundamentally wrong in general. Even if it was completely legal by the rules, which is not, it will provide nothing good to combat encounters. This would merely prolong combat overall and I can guarantee that players wouldn't like it if GM was using the same tactic against lv 15 barbarian with CR 1/3 creature. It's both annoying and pointless from both sides.

Ratatat-at (sound of 15th level BarBar just drawing a bow and firing).

He is still wasting shot and time on CR 1/3 creatures which practically don't even grant XP. Over prolonged time, players will become annoyed by it because it prevents their basic concept from working, which is smashing stuff in melee.

This tactic is still wrong and so far nobody really gave any good argument about it. Komoda which mentions AoO is only better argument but still people assume differently.

If you attempt to attack someone, the only real question is: Did I manage to receive an attack roll? If yes, roll the damage normally. If not, then no attack action has been expended. There is no middle ground here and I am of course talking about attacker. If people wish to dodge attacks, they can use Total Defense. This is what AC is for.

You can even change your full-round action after making first attack to standard (that you just used) and move, so i do not see problem letting someone downgrade their standard to move when they did not use any of it.

DarkPhoenixx wrote:

You can even change your full-round action after making first attack to standard (that you just used) and move, so i do not see problem letting someone downgrade their standard to move when they did not use any of it.

That is a specific rule, and by the rules what you really do is make the first attack then decide to continue attacking or take a move action. Most GM's just cut past asking you do you want to continue attacking, and allow you to do so.

Another specific "Action" exchange rule is using a standard action to perform a move action. However you can not use a standard or move action to perform a swift action because the rules do no allow it.

Also by allowing the person to change their action, then the trigger never took place, so the person'd action that make other person change their action never took place. So now what do we do?

It is like those time traveling problems in tv shows.

i also made kinda-similar thread about spell back then and most people seems to agree that spellcaster/creature can change area of effect if opponent readied to move (technically they dont have to declare it untill spell resolves)

P.S. Ninja'd me.

I agree(based on debates in other threads), but I don't like it in this case. I think the rules would be better for spells if the decision was made as soon as you began casting. That way even if someone moved the target area could not be changed.

It would not be so much outrunning a fireball, but watching to see where the fireball is going to be and timing your movement to avoid it, kinda of like how cornerbacks read quaterbacks to know where they will throw the ball.

 2 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Also Komoda has done nothing to support "take backs" which are against RAI as shown by Jason saying your "effectively" going in the middle of the action. Maybe we need an FAQ on "take backs" to wrap this up.

I agree. But I absolutely showed that disrupting spells is the exception, not the norm.

I play a little loose with the declaration of actions at my table (someone misunderstands what is going on - nope go ahead start over) but I do play readied actions (RAW: if the readied action is based off another characters actions it interrupts the action - just like an AoO) as they happen after the triggering action has been committed.

The very simple tactic is for the monster to:

Move to the character.
Ready an action to attack when the character does anything.

A readied action still can trigger off a 5 foot step - the only thing it prevents is an AOO.

This doesn't really do anything except play a game of dancing around the table with a ton of readied actions. The monsters assuming they are above animal intelligence should latch onto this and set up a situation where the 5 foot step is death.

Or the monster/foe could force the player to move at all during his turn at which point no 'ready action' to move.

Or they pull out a bow.

Just saying.

This doesn't seem to be clearly spelled out.

As a DM, I wouldn't allow this, it grants invulnerability, and does NOT make sense if you try to visualize it in the real world...

Apply rule 0 and change this.

If I'm not mistaken, 5foot move is a free action, which can't be taken outside of your turn... readied action takes place on monsters turn, therefor 5ft move isn't allowed.

alexd1976 wrote:

As a DM, I wouldn't allow this, it grants invulnerability, and does NOT make sense if you try to visualize it in the real world...

Apply rule 0 and change this.

If I'm not mistaken, 5foot move is a free action, which can't be taken outside of your turn... readied action takes place on monsters turn, therefor 5ft move isn't allowed.

There are many ways to get around it, as per this thread, so it hardly grants invulnerability. As for it being rules legal, look up the rules for readying an action. You explicitly can take a 5ft step as part of one.

Bah. The rules aren't perfect.

If it truly works this way, all monsters should use the tactic. Rules apply equally to PCs and NPCs alike...

I would squash this, though as a player the idea of readying a move in response to a fireball or similar is intriguing...

Essentially, anyone with a readied action and a move greater than 20 is immune to fireball?

Nice.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:

I would squash this, though as a player the idea of readying a move in response to a fireball or similar is intriguing...

Essentially, anyone with a readied action and a move greater than 20 is immune to fireball?

Nice.

As a DM I'd be pretty happy if my players were deliberately wasting their turns to do that. Because no doubt they are wasting their turns if they do that. There's a reason counter spelling and even just waiting with an arrow to peg an enemy caster and maybe disrupt his spell aren't commonly done; playing super defensive like that doesn't win fights. You are pretty much always better off doing something proactive instead. By spending your entire turn hoping that you get targeted by a spell just so you can dive for cover, you are pretty much crowd controlling yourself.

chaoseffect wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

I would squash this, though as a player the idea of readying a move in response to a fireball or similar is intriguing...

Essentially, anyone with a readied action and a move greater than 20 is immune to fireball?

Nice.

As a DM I'd be pretty happy if my players were deliberately wasting their turns to do that. Because no doubt they are wasting their turns if they do that. There's a reason counter spelling and even just waiting with an arrow to peg an enemy caster and maybe disrupt his spell aren't commonly done; playing super defensive like that doesn't win fights. You are pretty much always better off doing something proactive instead. By spending your entire turn hoping that you get targeted by a spell just so you can dive for cover, you are pretty much crowd controlling yourself.

Fair enough... but does it seem logical within the existing rules?

"you see the mage begin casting his spell"
"My readied action triggers! As soon as he finishes the spell, as per my readied action declared earlier, I not only outrun the fireball, but move to the nearby cover as well!".

I guess as a caster-hater, I don't really see much of a problem with this... is just seems weird... I mean, could you ready an action to outrun a magic missile by moving into cover? If not, why not?

Spells don't list travel times. Fireball and Disintegrate both move at the same rate (that is, you can outrun them, apparently).

I just don't like the interpretation of readied actions being used here... I've never had someone try it at my table, because it just doesn't SEEM right...

As per RAI and sense, your action is happening in the middle of theirs. It's more like you see some guy in a pointy hat wriggling his fingers and staring at you evilly and you get the idea that it's a good time to take cover before he's done.

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
alexd1976 wrote:

This doesn't seem to be clearly spelled out.

As a DM, I wouldn't allow this, it grants invulnerability, and does NOT make sense if you try to visualize it in the real world...

Apply rule 0 and change this.

If I'm not mistaken, 5foot move is a free action, which can't be taken outside of your turn... readied action takes place on monsters turn, therefor 5ft move isn't allowed.

A 5 foot step is not an action at all and, under Ready, the PRD says:

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.

But you can literally say to your GM:

"As the caster finishes casting whatever he is casting, I will dive into complete cover".

Saving throws be damned, just stay near a wall.
If you have any ability to use actions as swift or free, to cause damage, the opposing caster is gonna have a bad time...

I mean, a big rock in the middle of a large field... this tactic works for THAT scenario, for a lot of spells...

It just seems odd to me.

I get that it burns your standard action, but it just doesn't SEEM right. Not that I'm arguing that casters need to be any more powerful, mind you...

@alexd1976

Alex,

What I believe that people often miss is keyword that triggers readied action. While readied action can be readied in numerous ways, it's also limited.

If the player readies action to move away before enemy spell caster casts Fireball the end result is that player moved away, but if he didn't have Cover or something else to lose LoS, enemy spell caster can move the direction of Fireball to his new location. Fireball has Long range after all and moving 20 ft. away doesn't necessarily dodge it. The same principle applies to everything else in melee combat.

This is purely how I interpret the RAW.

 3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

"I ready an action to dramatically leap towards the camera as the fireball explodes."

Malag wrote:

@alexd1976

Alex,

What I believe that people often miss is keyword that triggers readied action. While readied action can be readied in numerous ways, it's also limited.

If the player readies action to move away before enemy spell caster casts Fireball the end result is that player moved away, but if he didn't have Cover or something else to lose LoS, enemy spell caster can move the direction of Fireball to his new location. Fireball has Long range after all and moving 20 ft. away doesn't necessarily dodge it. The same principle applies to everything else in melee combat.

This is purely how I interpret the RAW.

Could you not simply say "upon completion of the casting of his spell, I run for cover?"

not before he casts it... not while he is casting it... AFTER he finishes casting it. Spell is wasted, you are under cover...

It's the same logic as the original point. As a monster charges (a single action which involves both moving and attacking) the defender simply steps away, negating the attack...

It really does seem odd when they have Total Defense available...

Saying that the spell-dodge approach only works under certain conditions is, of course, a given. One could argue that a silenced/stilled spell would not be noticed and thus could not be 'dodged' this way.

By all means, add two levels to all the spells cast, wouldn't bother me one bit.

What bothers me about the original post... is comparing it to real life.

Bullfighters train for YEARS to avoid being gored to death. This interpretation of readied actions would allow any commoner to step into the ring with a raging full-grown bull and dodge around it all day with no rolls or worries.

Just doesn't seem right. The entire sport of bullfighting can't exist in Pathfinder because of this. Actually, since there are no rules on combat related fatigue, the bull and the peasant would dodge around each other until the GM finally got tired of it and arbitrarily ended the contest...

Whether or not the rules allow for this is no longer relevant to me, I would not allow such shenanigans in my game, and I have allowed my players to craft rings of wishes with 3 daily uses... :D

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There a huge "apply common sense" condition that should be applied to readied actions.

Try this amusing one on for size:

Player: I ready an action to fire my bow if the door is opened at whoever opens the door.

(This assumes combat has begun.)

Note that the firing of the bow is resolved before the action that triggers it.

I don't think many GMs would insist that the player shoots the door.

Some people seem to have a pretty poor grasp of tactics if they don't understand how to counter this. It only works when a single enemy is closing, and if the enemy is smart and understands your tactic, all he has to do is not take that first attack. Then your readied action is wasted.

Then next round he does a full attack action, using a five foot step as needed. Meanwhile, you're giving up full attacks and movement to get a single attack.

This is the sort of thing that can work once or twice in an encounter. Since the PCs are often ambushed and surprised, it's not game breaking to give them an extra hit on a monster or two at the beginning.

Komoda wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Also Komoda has done nothing to support "take backs" which are against RAI as shown by Jason saying your "effectively" going in the middle of the action. Maybe we need an FAQ on "take backs" to wrap this up.
I agree. But I absolutely showed that disrupting spells is the exception, not the norm.

Um, no, you showed that spell casting is the norm, that there are no take backs, and that readying an action interrupts 'during' your opponents action. The quotes you provided were pretty explicit on this.

The only difference with spell casting is that there is a special ability to disrupt it with damage, not that you are prevented from doing something else. That part is common to all 'interrupted' actions.

 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Nefreet wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
So they charge, they get up to you as part of the charge's movement, and they would attack... but then your readied action goes off, and, according to you, it goes off before the charge attack action happens.
Readying if they charge, and readying if they attack, are 2 separate things.
Uh, even if I ready against an attack, the action they used to produce that attack is still (in this example) the charge action. Charge is not an assembly of separate actions. The guy who charges me never makes the "attack action" that you've inserted into the quote box, only the charge action.
If I charge you, and you have Fire Shield active, do I take damage?

Sure, but what's that got to do with anything? That spell looks for attacks, not attack actions. It doesn't care what action you use to produce your attack.

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
alexd1976 wrote:

It's the same logic as the original point. As a monster charges (a single action which involves both moving and attacking) the defender simply steps away, negating the attack...

There is nothing to negate. Monster is charging you, not the square you are in. If it didn't receive the attack roll, you didn't "dodge" anything. It simply continues to charge. Ready action doesn't stop the monster's attack. This makes sense both in real life and in game.

 51 to 100 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>