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.
The lead designer of the game specifically calls it out as an exception. I quoted it. How can you possibly deem it is not an exception when he calls it out as one?
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...
How does stepping back to dodge when you expect somebodyy to hit you seem impossible to visualize? i havve done this myself tons of times IRL
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.
the entire point of a readied action is that it LETS you act on the enemy's turn
But in real life, the attacker didn't lose half of his actions and has a chance to recover.
In real life, moving 5' back does not stop the attacker from moving 5' forward.
But in real life, the attacker didn't lose half of his actions and has a chance to recover.
In real life, moving 5' back does not stop the attacker from moving 5' forward.
sure it can, the attacker overswings because he expected to hit flesh instead of air, this causes him to stumble and have to right himself, im sure that can EASILY spend 6 seconds from start to finish
But in real life, the attacker didn't lose half of his actions and has a chance to recover.
In real life, moving 5' back does not stop the attacker from moving 5' forward.
The thing about this is that the game isn't real life. The game has set rules. And because of rules stuff like this works.
It takes about 1.5 seconds for an attacker to clear 21', starting from zero. That is why cops like to keep suspects back. Only a lumbering (insert Paizo safe word here) would take 6 seconds to "recover" from someone side stepping.
Look up "reactionary gap"
|
I would use the Swashbuckler class for guidance. It has a deed to do exactly this.
If a PC wants to use a readied action to step away from an attacker, I would allow a bonus to AC but not negate the attack entirely.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I would use the Swashbuckler class for guidance. It has a deed to do exactly this.
** spoiler omitted **
If a PC wants to use a readied action to step away from an attacker, I would allow a bonus to AC but not negate the attack entirely.
If you use that deed as a baseline, then the readied tactic actually needs a BETTER outcome, because the deed you cite doesn't cost the PC their full-attack and doesn't risk the PC losing their entire turn if the enemy does something unexpected.
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...
How does stepping back to dodge when you expect somebodyy to hit you seem impossible to visualize? i havve done this myself tons of times IRL
the entire point of a readied action is that it LETS you act on the enemy's turnApply 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.
So you would argue that you could avoid a trained martial artist, indefinitely, simply by focusing on doing so? that all you have to do is not attack them and nothing they do will result in their fist impacting your face?
That is what the original person mentioned is doing, because they are interrupting after the move/before the attack but simultaneously AFTER the attack starts (which precludes further movement, cause you can't move again after attacking).
It's metagaming at its worst. It also reveals a severe flaw in how readied actions can work.
How should a GM adjudicate this statement: "I will move up until I can strike my opponent, then, after being in range, I will strike him"?
1) attacker moves into striking range
2) readied action triggers
3) attack which triggers readied action can't happen because of range...
4) due to range, no attack can occur, NOR HAS AN ATTACK TAKEN PLACE
5) attacker, not having rolled to hit or for damage, has not attacked
6) attacker finishes movement and attacks
Due to the time travelling aspect of readied actions, the defender reacts to something which hasn't happened... then the attacker gets to attack him anyway.
Use Total Defense if you want to waste your actions, at least it gives you +4 dodge AC.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Moving Pathfinder minis around on a battle-grid is not entirely unlike playing a game in chess. Both games are simulating combat with a set of restrictive rules that turn combat into a strategy game.
In chess, bishops can only move diagonally, knights can only move in an L shape, pawns (foot soldiers) can only move forward but cannot kill anything right in front of them, queens are the scariest warrior on the battlefield, and castles get up and walk around.
Nobody would ever claim that these rules of chess are an ACCURATE simulation of real live combat. Chess is full of rules that MAKE NO SENSE on a real battlefield.
But, Pathfinder does try much harder to simulate real life combat - and then they throw spells and dragons and other unreal things into it. But throughout it all, Pathfinder at least tries to make sure the rules ACTUALLY MAKE SENSE on a real battlefield, inasmuch as rules about spells and dragons could make sense.
Absolutely negating an opponent's entire combat viability by sidestepping him before he even attacks and somehow expecting that simple sidestep to prevent him from EVER attacking, EVER, while at the same time still being able to attack him at your leisure, MAKES NO SENSE.
This kind of tactic turns Pathfinder simulationist combat into a game of chess by using nonsensical rules to achieve nonsensical results that make no sense on a real battlefield.
I don't think the dev's intent for their ROLEPLAYING game was to destroy the sense of simulation by transforming Pathfinder combat into a gamist chess match.
It seems to me that the reasonable thing to do is make rulings on AoOs and on readied actions that make sense.
If an enemy is moving toward you to attack, and you ready an action to HIT it then take a tiny step away, you should expect a ruling that the enemy keeps moving and hits you back (assuming it still can) - this MAKES SENSE on a real battlefield.
It's really not that hard. Just stop turning Pathfinder into chess and the game makes a lot more sense.
(Side note: I'm a professional chess instructor, so I am by no means bashing the wonderful game of chess that I love so much and that provides me with a solid income - I'm only saying it's a different game than Pathfinder)
1) you ready action.
2) opponent triggers it in his turn, you avoid attacks by not being where he is.
3) his turn ends.
4) you ready action...
OP made it sound like person doing this was doing what is listed above.
I don't agree with what is listed above.
Do you?
I understand the rules, better than the person trying to pull these shenanigans it seems. No need to question ME about it, I don't agree that it should work this way!
You are picking apart what I wrote despite the fact that I agree with you... gotta say, a little hurt. Gonna go home and cry.
Seriously though, my last post articulates my thoughts the best of all my posts. I really got sucked into this one, wow.
*FACEPALM*
It's like you guys don't even bother to read what people post.
You get to avoid 1 attack from one monster, the first time he moves up to attack you.
What the hell is with this 'EVER' and 'indefinitely' that you guys are going on about? It just doesn't work that way. At all.
Why? Because if you try the same tactic the next round (giving up your full attack sequence), then that person takes his allowed five foot step to follow up and beat the crap out of you with his full attack sequence.
What is so difficult to understand about this? Why do you guys think this works for 'EVERY' attack, or indefinitely?
Round 1:
Monster charges, I use readied action to attack him and 5'Step away. Monster's turn ends with no attacks.Round 2:
I ready again, monster 5'Steps, I use readied action to hit monster and 5'Step away. Monster's turn ends (he used his 5'Step and began attacking so he's done moving and now he can't reach me or move again).
Round 3: Repeat.
The saving grace is if the monster didn't charge in round 1 it might go like this:
Round 1:
Monster moves with just one move action, I use readied action to attack him and 5'Step away. Monster uses second action to move adjacent to me then its turn ends with no attacks.
Round 2:
I ready again, monster is adjacent so it attacks but I use readied action to attack it then 5'Step away but now it fails because monster just 5'Steps and finishes its attack.
But, if I can trip or otherwise impede the monster, I can either end all its attacks or at least force it to use just one attack/round instead of full attacking. So it's not a game-breaker when the monster just moves into combat but it is a game-breaker if the monster charges into combat in which case the very best it can do is to never use 5'Step so that it can give up its second round of combat to end adjacent to me. Monster loses two rounds of combat because I'm playing chess on a Pathfinder battlefield.
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.
The lead designer of the game specifically calls it out as an exception. I quoted it. How can you possibly deem it is not an exception when he calls it out as one?
Did you not read all the quotes you posted?
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.Clearly spell casting is not an exception as far as when the interruption occurs.
So, what makes spell casting 'the exception' you are referring to? Well, your other quote says pretty specifically:
As it concerns consistency and casting spells and AoOs: The concentration check is a specifically called exception to the chain of events.Since we're not discussing the concentration check at the moment, the fact that this exception exists is entirely irrelevant.
I think you might have missed the very next sentence:
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.
Notice, it does not say anything like:
"The exception allows the AoO to NOT have an effect on whether or not the spell is completed"
The exception is that the AoO can stop the spell, not that there is a concentration check to see if it happens while the AoO stops everything else automatically.
But the interrupt very well may be. As the AoO happens BEFORE the action that triggers it, it is very possible the action is still available.
I know that is WAY up for debate in other threads and wasn't the point I was trying to make for this one. The point I was making in relation to this thread, is that the interruption of the spell is specifically an exception to how the interrupts work and cannot be used as the basis for how all interrupts work.
One cannot say: "Like spells" because nothing works like spells.
But the interrupt very well may be. As the AoO happens BEFORE the action that triggers it, it is very possible the action is still available.
I know that is WAY up for debate in other threads and wasn't the point I was trying to make for this one. The point I was making in relation to this thread, is that the interruption of the spell is specifically an exception to how the interrupts work and cannot be used as the basis for how all interrupts work.
One cannot say: "Like spells" because nothing works like spells.
Huh? One of the very quotes you posted described how AoO for spells, movement, tripping and standing up were all similar. I'll quote it one more time for you:
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.That's the lead designer confirming that they all work the same way with regard to interruption. The only thing different about spellcasting is the concentration check and damage leading to the loss of the spell.
Honestly, the resistance to the tactic that is the topic of this thread confounds me a bit. It's strict RAW that applies the same way to everything else that is interrupted by AoOs and readied actions.
For example, let's say that you had a buddy standing next to you when the enemy approaches. You use this tactic and step five foot step back, but your buddy is still there.
Guess what? The enemy can still attack your buddy because he hasn't 'lost' his attack action, you're just no longer a valid target.
I don't think you are reading that correctly. The lead designer is saying that the AoO happens BEFORE the triggering action in all cases. He is saying that the exception is that even though the AoO happens before the spell is cast, it can interrupt the spell during spell casting. Below, he specifically states that no such exception exists for tripping, disarming...
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).
The quote you posted above shows that they all happen before the triggering event, not that they "interrupt" (as in stop) the triggering event.
As to the loss of an attack action that you mention, some people feel that if the trigger for the readied action was "I am attacked" than if the trigger goes off and you are no longer a valid target, that in fact, that attack is lost.
As I think Gauss pointed out, that part is being discussed in another thread. Again, my intention was to clearly show that no matter what your opinion on the loss of actions, Spell Concentration is not a valid comparison because it is handled differently.
Komoda, you also need to stop using the quotes regarding Spell Concentration. You believe it proves things, it doesn't. You are misreading Jason's statement. Yes, no written, baked in, exception exists for other effects BUT then he stated that other game rules could dictate an interruption. We are in the 'other rules' section of things, not the 'baked in automatic failure' section.
Yes, Spell Concentration is a bad example for this debate...FOR BOTH SIDES.
And yes, this should be discussed in the other thread. :)
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Guess what, tactics should be effective against mindless creatures. It balances out for their immunity to mind affecting spells.Round 2: Monster isn't dumb, sees you readying an action, moves up to you and doesn't attack. Your readied action doesn't go off. No attacks.Some monsters are dumb. Heck some monsters are mindless.
Except this isn't really tactics, it's a metagamey "perfect dodge" that relies on flaws in the turn-based combat system to be effectively unhittable.
Effectively unhittable against 1 dumb creature
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or
Round 1: Like you said, monster charges in, gets hit can't attack.
Round 2: Monster isn't dumb, sees you readying an action, moves up to you and doesn't attack. Your readied action doesn't go off. No attacks.
How does he see that?
What does readying an attack look like? How does it look any different than, oh, say, looking for an opening to attack?
Is the monster playing chess too? Can the monster only move on diagonals? Will it capture me en passant?
I submit that when I use this tactic, I've moved out of the realm of simulationist battle and into the realm of arbitrary nonsense rules. And when the monster can SEE that, he's switched realms too.
Sure, I get it, some people like arbitrary rules that make no sense and don't conform to any normal sense of realism. No matter how big your property is, you can only build 1-4 houses on it, or you can build a hotel, but only after you buy those 4 houses and then wreck them to make room for the hotel. Some people just want to play a board game with board-gamey rules.
It doesn't seem to me that the Pathfinder devs set out to make a board game. Even though some parts of it resemble one, the flavor of the game, the subtext, and almost all of the rules seem to be more of a (fantasy) reality simulator. So when rule breaks that mold, it seems to me we ought to interpret it in ways to bring it back to the game's intended flavor.
Readying is a standard action. Are you saying that this action is somehow invisible?
I see you're still playing chess.
So tell me, if you and I were to meet at the flagpole after school (just a metaphor, I'm not trying to be insulting), about 2 seconds after the fight starts you notice I'm have not immediately thrown any punch- I didn't punch you during the first 2 seconds of the fight.
Why not?
Did I lose initiative?
Did I delay to go after you?
Am I just afraid of you?
Am I too intimidated to attack?
Am I just a natural (or trained) counter-puncher?
Am I readying an action to punch you after you start punching me but before you punch me, that action being to punch you and move away?
If you can tell the difference between that last one and ANY of the ones preceding it on the list, then you're a much better fighter than I am.
To me those all look alike.
Furthermore, that last one is purely stupid in an actual, real-world fist fight - there is no way to way to wait for you to start punching me so that I can punch you before you start punching me. Unless I have a time machine. But it works in Pathfinder, even if it only works on the first round when the opponents have some distance between them.
Much, if not most, of 'tactics' in Pathfinder are metagame concepts. Reach, position, cover, concealment, movement, withdrawal, 5' steps. Every time you use a 'rule' to give yourself an advantage in combat you are in effect metagaming, because 'reality-speaking' that rule is only an approximation of reality.
I totally agree with you. You and I play a game. In that game, we ROLEPLAY our characters who are NOT playing a game. Choosing to limit them to actions that are plausible for OUR CHARACTERS is a way to simulate their reality. Choosing to let our characters do things that only WE PLAYERS could possibly know or think about (e.g. gamist abstract rules) is NOT simulating their reality.
It's playing chess.
However, if you really must insist, readying an action to strike and move is a perfectly valid 'reality-based' tactic. You ready yourself such that when you enemy closes, you strike quickly and dance away before he can react. This type of action is adequately encapsulated by the ready-attack-5' step maneuver.
I TOTALLY agree.
But the assumption that, when you take that little free step, you invalidate all remaining movement and probably all remaining attacks, of your enemy is a purely gamist notion, exploiting an odd loophole of the chess-like rules, that in no way simulates anything that would or could happen at our flagpole.
Based on that, I suggest it should not happen in a Pathfinder battle either.
If you think this is such an awesome, game breaking metagaming tactic, how about we each play two identical mid to high level martial characters. You commit to using this tactic, and I'll attack normally. You will always lose.
I actually have no idea how effective it is. I play in fairly simulationistic games where nobody, ever, has even suggested such a thing. Not even my rules-lawyerish, balance-breaking system expert players.
But if they did, I'd immediately let them know that the ebb-and-flow of combat just doesn't work that way - you can't wait for someone to attack you then attack them before they attack you AND move away so that they can't attack you, despite the fact that you did all this after waiting for an attack they cannot now make. Paradox. You just can't do it.
That's what I'd tell them, anyway, even though the rules do allow them to do it.
|
You can houserule anyways you like. However, given this is the 'rules' section of the website, we should probably advise people as to what the rules actually say.
This isn't one of topics where you can actually claim that. At the very best, rules are in the grey area so multiple interpretations might exist. RAI is also equally good to follow as RAW in specific cases like this.
In the above example, a lv1 goblin can kite lv15 barbarian considering that the goblin won initiative and barbarian doesn't have magic or ranged weapons at disposal. He can kite him for hours. This isn't normal in any sense at all.
Malag, if a level 1 goblin can kite a level 15 barbarian then the level 15 barbarian is an idiot and horribly built. Oh, and even non-ranged weapons are ranged weapons, so unless the barbarian is nakid and there are no rocks around.....
Hey all. So I'm DM'ing a campaign and one of my players wants to ready a 5' step for when a monster attacks him. Said character is attacking with Dwarven Longhammer, so he has reach. So the plan is the monster moves in to attack, player takes his AoO from reach and 5's out. Does this somehow negate the monster's attack? The only way I would think that's possible is if the monster moves his 30' and the 5' step puts the character out of range, but I assume from the Ready action description that the monster can still continue moving closer (if it has movement left) and attack. "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."
Correct me if I'm wrong.
This is easy and very bad language on the players part tbh. If he readies to 5 step when the enemy attacks him, then have the enemy attack him and roll to hit and then roll for damage and after that is squared away then let him 5 ft step away and not get an aoo.
Yes I know ready actions happen BEFORE the action, but since pathfinder doesn't have any rules for moving away and an enemy attacking an empty square, tbh the player put themselves into a position where specific beats regular rules. He cannot 5ft if the monster doesn't attack them and the enemy attacking an empty square doesn't mean it's attacking them, so the only way to make the ready action happen is to let the attack go off since the player put themselves into a position where their trigger can't go off before so it goes off when they are actually attacked.GMs can game the system too :-)
_Ozy_, thank you for that. The goblin lasts exactly 2 rounds longer than he should have.
As Ozy has shown, this tactic will delay someone, that is all.
|
|
Go for it. You play the goblin, I'll play the barbarian. You won't last a few rounds much less 'hours'.I have a feeling you don't understand the rules here.
You might make me miss the first attack if I charge in and swing.
Second round, I move in and don't attack, you just wasted your entire turn waiting for my attack.
Third round, I attack, you use your readied action to attack and move, I 5' step, full attack and you are dead.
Please explain how those 3 rounds convert to 'hours' in your mind.
The goblin can prepare the same ready action constantly even if you don't attack. Okay, it's not exactly hours. A fact that you can move in and not trigger it didn't occur to me but even with 3 rounds, single goblin survived probably more then he should. This tactic might become incredibly annoying against players with melee characters.
sure it can, the attacker overswings because he expected to hit flesh instead of air, this causes him to stumble and have to right himself, im sure that can EASILY spend 6 seconds from start to finishBut in real life, the attacker didn't lose half of his actions and has a chance to recover.
In real life, moving 5' back does not stop the attacker from moving 5' forward.
That is what dodge bonus to AC for.
For example, let's say that you had a buddy standing next to you when the enemy approaches. You use this tactic and step five foot step back, but your buddy is still there.
Guess what? The enemy can still attack your buddy because he hasn't 'lost' his attack action, you're just no longer a valid target.
And if there is no valid targets it makes whole action invalid and allows to do something instead.
Or i will agree that this is houserule, frankly i dont care.
Actually there's no paradox at all. It's a simple misunderstanding of how readying an action works (not helped by the carving up of the combat round into initiative steps and actions, but that's an inevitable feature of almost any abstracted system).
Readied actions resolve by interrupting the flow of combat at the instant the conditions are met. The action being performed is effectively "paused" an instant after it is begun (before any dice get rolled, but after the action is committed to), resolved in full, and then action continues. (Also known as "there is no time travel involved in readying an action".)
In your example, the readied action occurs while the moving character is in the square within reach of the readying character, but before their movement actually ends.
The reason this causes a problem (and why this thread exists) is that a large number of combat options assume that an action committed to (such as "I attack") completely preclude alterations once begun (unlike movement, which doesn't have to end until you've used up all of your speed in the round).
So if someone uses a readied action to try to avoid my movement, I can adjust after they've resolved, but if someone uses a readied action to avoid my attack, or spell, or anything else, I'm stuck (for that action - see the three round resolution above).
Oddly, this makes movement the outlier action, not attacking, since from the defender's perspective movement is the only type of action that readying is less effective against.
The more I think about it, the more I suspect that allowing readying to provide a momentary defensive advantage is by design. It's certainly not sustainable, as has been demonstrated, but seems like it should provide a benefit (considering that the cost is an actual shift in your initiative score, which can do very unpleasant things).
(unlike movement, which doesn't have to end until you've used up all of your speed in the round).
This is debated and there is no rule source for it. I am not disagreeing with you, I am just pointing it out.
Many people feel once you "declare" an action there are no take-backs. Others feel that a change in the battlefield allows a change in one's actions. Some people feel this change only relates to movement. Others feel it can relate to actions too.
This is not the same as changing one's actions based on the RESULT of that action. No one says that you can attack a creature with a non-magic weapon and find out they are immune to non-magic weapons and then "take-back" the attack and use a different weapon.
Yet Paizo, and Wizards, have failed to define exactly when declarations and actions take place and to what degree changes can be made.
Step-Up is a good example. I often see where a player, or even the DM, says, "I 5' step and cast a spell" and another player answers with, "I Step Up and attack since you provoke by casting a spell."
Now what? Is the Step Up player denied the ability to Step Up since it was not stated before the secondary action of casting the spell? Is the casting player not allowed to change his action since now that the enemy used Step Up?
My table has solved the problem above, as I am sure many tables have. It is just an easily understood example of how "take-backs" are available to some degree.
Why do so many players think that movement is done in 5' increments but all other actions MUST be completed once declared, regardless of AoOs and Readied Actions? There clearly is no concrete rule either way. And what amazes me the most about the discussions on this forum is how it appears people feel the interrupter (via readied action or AoO) always has the upper hand and the person's whose turn it actual is cannot make changes based on that interruption.
I think it will take a lot for Paizo to address this as a fundamental hole in the games rules. There are so many ways to interrupt with limited direction as to the exact timing of declaring actions and changing those declarations based on outside actions.
(unlike movement, which doesn't have to end until you've used up all of your speed in the round).This is debated and there is no rule source for it. I am not disagreeing with you, I am just pointing it out.
Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.
This is the reason for that particular argument.
If you have not moved all of your speed prior to the interruption, you can continue moving, since you can continue your actions.
You don't "move from here to there". You take a move action, which allows you to move up to your speed. If the move action is interrupted before you have moved up to your speed, your move action has not yet finished, and you are allowed to "continue[s] [your] actions ..."
Which is why I'm saying that it's actually movement which is the outlier, since it's the only type of action which isn't "locked in" once you start it.
This is a specific flaw in how readied actions affect the flow of combat: to remain consistent with other action types, either movement needs to stop at the point of the readied action being triggered, or responding to a readied action needs to allow some form of "take back".
My personal preference would probably be something like "if, as the result of a readied action, a standard action which was the trigger for the readied action is no longer physically possible to achieve, the standard action may be changed to a move action". But that's just me.
|
I can only see this in two ways:
"I ready for when the creature attacks me" Under this, the creature gets to complete one attack before triggering the ready.
or
"I ready for before the creature attacks me" Under this, the creature starts his attack but is interrupted before starting the action. Since he didn't start the action, he may then finish movement and start attacks.
Otherwise, there's be no way to say "I ready to trip him when he stands up" because the trip would occur before he stands up.
There is no way to interrupt an opponent's turn AND force them to lose their actions using a ready action. You either react to something or interrupt something before it starts.
There is no way to interrupt an opponent's turn AND force them to lose their actions using a ready action. You either react to something or interrupt something before it starts.
The problem lies in the fact that there is a way to do it, even if it is not intended to be that way. (not saying it isn't, just that it is possible).
If someone charges, say they move 20' and attack. The other person 5' steps to a place that can be attacked. Now the Charge is lost because the attack was interrupted by a non-action.
The same can be said for an AoO trip on the starting square of a charging character. A full round action has been declared and the charger was tripped in the first square. So, even though that character never acted, as the AoO happens before the charge, there is a strong argument that all of the charger's actions for the round have been used up.
Which is why there is so much uncertainty as to how interrupts work. Or at least there is a heck of a lot of certainty for two different sides.
The trigger condition is an answer to an event. So Before or After as in action then reaction. There is no in between for the Attack action, you attack or you do not. True or false. Code wise, an Attack is a functionality, so is any action.
When building logic, the first thing you do is define variables and functionalities. Here is a quick example, while I did it in 10 min and really simplified the whole thing, it should be enough to illustrate the 2 cases.
Functionalities:
Attack = ( Roll to Hit vs AC; if hit then dmg= Dx + strength; M= False )
5 feet = ( Move 5 feet in square x, y then M= False )
Move = ( If M= True and MD > 0 then Move 5 feet in square x, y; MD= MD -5 ; If MD=0 then M= False )
Conditions:
AOO = ( IF PC Move from NPC (ADJ or Reach) then Attack; IF NPC Move from PC(ADJ or Reach) then Attack )
Trigger A = ( IF NPC = attack then PC = 5 feet then Attack )
Trigger B = ( IF NPC move = PC ADJ then PC = 5 feet then Attack )
Variables:
M = True
MD = Character movement speed
ADJ = Adjacent square
Reach = ADJ + 5
PC = Player
NPC = Orc
(X,y)= square location
Knowing this:
10 – NPC Move; (x,y) != Reach or ADJ
20 - Trigger A = False; MD>0; AOO = False
30 – NPC Move; (x,y) = Reach; (x,y) != ADJ
40 – Trigger A = false; MD > 0; AOO = True
50 - NPC Move; (x,y) != Reach; (x,y) = ADJ
60 - NPC Attack
70 – Trigger A = True; MD = 0
10 – NPC Move; (x,y) != Reach or ADJ
20 - Trigger B = False; AOO = False; MD>0
30 – NPC Move; (x,y) = Reach; (x,y) != ADJ
40 – Trigger B = false; AOO = True; MD>0
50 - NPC Move; (x,y) != Reach; (x,y) = ADJ
60 – Trigger B = True; MD>0
70 - NPC Move; (x,y) != Reach; (x,y) = ADJ
90 – NPC Attack; MD = 0
TL/DR = Trying to apply 2 steps at the same time will only result in a deadlock and invalidate the trigger. There is a reason in code logic why you need an exit line or counter to get out of loops.
The trigger condition is an answer to an event. So Before or After as in action then reaction. There is no in between for the Attack action, you attack or you do not. True or false. Code wise, an Attack is a functionality, so is any action.
When building logic, the first thing you do is define variables and functionalities. Here is a quick example, while I did it in 10 min and really simplified the whole thing, it should be enough to illustrate the 2 cases.
Functionalities:
Attack = ( Roll to Hit vs AC; if hit then dmg= Dx + strength; M= False )
5 feet = ( Move 5 feet in square x, y then M= False )
Move = ( If M= True and MD > 0 then Move 5 feet in square x, y; MD= MD -5 ; If MD=0 then M= False )Conditions:
AOO = ( IF PC Move from NPC (ADJ or Reach) then Attack; IF NPC Move from PC(ADJ or Reach) then Attack )
Trigger A = ( IF NPC = attack then PC = 5 feet then Attack )
Trigger B = ( IF NPC move = PC ADJ then PC = 5 feet then Attack )Variables:
M = True
MD = Character movement speed
ADJ = Adjacent square
Reach = ADJ + 5
PC = Player
NPC = Orc
(X,y)= square locationKnowing this:
10 – NPC Move; (x,y) != Reach or ADJ
20 - Trigger A = False; MD>0; AOO = False
30 – NPC Move; (x,y) = Reach; (x,y) != ADJ
40 – Trigger A = false; MD > 0; AOO = True
50 - NPC Move; (x,y) != Reach; (x,y) = ADJ
60 - NPC Attack
70 – Trigger A = True; MD = 010 – NPC Move; (x,y) != Reach or ADJ
20 - Trigger B = False; AOO = False; MD>0
30 – NPC Move; (x,y) = Reach; (x,y) != ADJ
40 – Trigger B = false; AOO = True; MD>0
50 - NPC Move; (x,y) != Reach; (x,y) = ADJ
60 – Trigger B = True; MD>0
70 - NPC Move; (x,y) != Reach; (x,y) = ADJ
90 – NPC Attack; MD = 0TL/DR = Trying to apply 2 steps at the same time will only result in a deadlock and invalidate the trigger. There is a reason in code logic why you need an exit line or counter to get out of loops.
Despite 18 years as a software engineer, I have no idea what this 'code' is trying to do or what you are trying to say. Nor do I understand what you are trying to point out by your TL/DR section.
Please repost with either a more clear code sample, or written in english rather than pseudo code.
I have a feeling you don't understand the rules here.
You might make me miss the first attack if I charge in and swing.
Second round, I move in and don't attack, you just wasted your entire turn waiting for my attack.
Third round, I attack, you use your readied action to attack and move, I 5' step, full attack and you are dead.
Ahhhh, but on my second round I anticipate that you're going to do that, so I ready a different trigger - I ready my action to hit you when you end your move adjacent to me (or when you begin doing nothing).
Now it reads like this:
Second round, I move in and don't attack, you use your readied action to hit me and step away 5'. I have one standard action left but can't reach you, so I use it to move 5 feet and end my turn.
Third round, you attack. You now got to attack me three times while I haven't been able to get in a single shot. If I'm still alive, I finally get to hit back in the THIRD ROUND OF COMBAT after you potentially wounded me 3 times.
Yeah, I still see this as a gamist nightmare that should be table-ruled into oblivion until Paizo officially erratas it into oblivion.
Then again, it's the end of (melee) Rocket-Tag if charge-pouncers have to wait until the third round to begin attacking (or they're dead before their first attack because at higher levels where rocket-tag is actually a thing, letting the monster get 3 free rounds of actions is suicide).