Kiting with 5' Steps???


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Sczarni

NikolaiJuno wrote:
Malag wrote:
This tactic might become incredibly annoying against players with melee characters.
First this tactic is not very effective against a party even if the party is just melee only. Second you've built your character wrong if you have no ranged options at all, even if they aren't much good you should still have at least one.

It is very effective against melee characters and players will be first to complain when I set several CR 1/4 opponents to block lv10 characters. Funnily enough, they would prolong combat by 1-3 rounds at the very least and no, not all characters are built for ranged combat, and no, not every character carries ranged weapons as stupid as it is. Another option is to put monsters with permanent effects like gaze effects or auras because I know that players can't hit them via melee and it's gonna last 3 rounds.

Sczarni

_Ozy_ wrote:


There are lots of rules that are 'annoying' to both players and GMs alike. If your players are annoying you by using it on your monsters, then annoy them by using it against them. Then you can both agree that such a tactic is too annoying and both agree not to use it.

My problem with this is "ready action against attack" is that it doesn't provide any immersion into the game itself. It's attempt to game the system because lets be honest, dodging attacks is usually connected with AC and not about readying actions vs attacks.

I know that my attempts of explaining this have been unfruitful but this interpretation of rule doesn't provide anything good in the Pathfinder system and I honestly believe that developers didn't want this.


Oh no, believe me, this is one of the worst possible implementations of counterattacking I can think of. It's clunky, uses the rules in ways that require careful reading, and annoys melee martials, already the worst off in the game. That being said it is the rules as they exist, which is what we're here to answer.

Why I don't think this is an issue is because this is only a good strategy in one-on-one combat. You're trading your standard action (most valuable) to defend yourself against one person. The second there's another melee person around you get creamed. Or ranged, or spellcasters, or really, anyone else. This is a great strategy to screw a lone, medium humanoid boss. Against a party? Not so much. And it faces the problems of all counterattack builds, if the enemy doesn't come for you then you literally just did nothing.


Ok, so why doesn't this shut down the melee with one attack or at least, their first, highest BAB attack? Am I missing something?

Defender readies an action to take a 5' step when attacked.
Attacker "starts" attack.
Defender moves 5'.
Attacker can not "finish" attack, loses it.
Attacker takes 5' step to move closer and does something as a move action.

Repeat.

Again, this is banned at our table, but just pure RAW, what is the way a melee can get around it with one attack?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Debate on this topic has gone on WAY too long. I've seen lot of theoretical 'what if' discussion, but not a single 'someone did this at my table and this was the outcome'. Perhaps those people who think this issue is actually a problem should try it and see. I think you will find it's a possible problem in theory, but not an actual problem in practice.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
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.
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?

It has everything to do with my example.

What happens at the end of a charge? An attack is made.

"I ready X when I'm attacked".

Sczarni

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Magda Luckbender wrote:
I've seen lot of theoretical 'what if' discussion, but not a single 'someone did this at my table and this was the outcome'. Perhaps those people who think this issue is actually a problem should try it and see. I think you will find it's a possible problem in theory, but not an actual problem in practice.

Enemies in PFS last 1-3 rounds.

Losing that one round to shenanigans like this means the encounter ends.


Komoda wrote:

Ok, so why doesn't this shut down the melee with one attack or at least, their first, highest BAB attack? Am I missing something?

Defender readies an action to take a 5' step when attacked.
Attacker "starts" attack.
Defender moves 5'.
Attacker can not "finish" attack, loses it.
Attacker takes 5' step to move closer and does something as a move action.

Repeat.

Again, this is banned at our table, but just pure RAW, what is the way a melee can get around it with one attack?

Huh? The attacker can 5' step as part of his full attack action to follow up and destroy the defender. This tactic just doesn't work like most people seem to think it does.


Only if you agree that the attack wasn't started and then therefore lost. Some people feel that since it was started, it is lost. Yes, you can 5' step after that first attack is lost, but you have still lost it. If you only have 1 attack, than all of your attacks are lost.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Why would a creature not be able to continue their move?

Their attack has not happened yet.


Komoda wrote:

Only if you agree that the attack wasn't started and then therefore lost. Some people feel that since it was started, it is lost. Yes, you can 5' step after that first attack is lost, but you have still lost it. If you only have 1 attack, than all of your attacks are lost.

Um, no. Please review the 5' step rules again. The attacker can move 5' before, during, or after his attack action. The attacker can 5' step as part of the attack and perform a full round of melee attacks on the defender.

The tactic just doesn't work like you say it does.

The attack isn't 'lost', it is just interrupted. As long as the attacker has a valid target, he can continue the attacks. And 5' stepping brings the original defender into range as a valid target.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Why would a creature not be able to continue their move?

Their attack has not happened yet.

Because their move action has ended. The creature has to begin taking the standard attack action to trigger the readied action.

At that point, the original move action is over.


Komoda wrote:

Only if you agree that the attack wasn't started and then therefore lost. Some people feel that since it was started, it is lost. Yes, you can 5' step after that first attack is lost, but you have still lost it. If you only have 1 attack, than all of your attacks are lost.

During a full attack you may take a 5' step before or after any part of your attack sequence.

I declare a full attack action.
I go to make my first attack.
Defender steps away. I am committed to attacking, but I still have choices in how I execute those attacks.
Because I can take a 5' step before or after any attack in the sequence, I 5' step before my first attack.
I make my attack (and any iteratives if I want) or switch to a standard attack and do a move-equivalent action if I want.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I see.

Readying an action to respond to an attack, rather than responding to them moving into a position where they are capable of making an attack, is different.

However, if they never used their standard action, would it not still be available?

Couldn't they still use that action, to move into melee?


Malag wrote:
NikolaiJuno wrote:
Malag wrote:
This tactic might become incredibly annoying against players with melee characters.
First this tactic is not very effective against a party even if the party is just melee only. Second you've built your character wrong if you have no ranged options at all, even if they aren't much good you should still have at least one.

It is very effective against melee characters and players will be first to complain when I set several CR 1/4 opponents to block lv10 characters. Funnily enough, they would prolong combat by 1-3 rounds at the very least and no, not all characters are built for ranged combat, and no, not every character carries ranged weapons as stupid as it is. Another option is to put monsters with permanent effects like gaze effects or auras because I know that players can't hit them via melee and it's gonna last 3 rounds.

In a party? The melee guy loses one attack. The archer in the party rapid shots and kills half the CR 1/4. The mage fireballs the rest.

The melee guy doesn't really care because fighting a bunch of CR 1/4's was going to be boring anyway.

I have seen this complaint about readied actions to dodge attacks come up multiple times on these forums. The truth is though that its really a non-issue, it is never a problem for a party. And for a one on one is trivially easy to counter.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I see.

Readying an action to respond to an attack, rather than responding to them moving into a position where they are capable of making an attack, is different.

However, if they never used their standard action, would it not still be available?

Couldn't they still use that action, to move into melee?

Depends on if you believe readied actions (and AoO's) literally go off before the triggering event even starts, or if they only resolve before the triggering event resolves.

Ask yourself the following:
PC has combat reflexes and a high dex. Should NPC standing next to said PC be able to have the following happen to them?
Start to move and provoke an AoO.
Change their mind and retrieve a item from their bags, provoking an AoO.
Change their mind, quick draw their bow, and make a ranged attack provoking an AoO.
Change their mind again and cast a spell, provoking an AoO.
Change their mind again, drop prone as a free action, then stand up provoking an AoO.

If you believe a character can change their mind about what action they are taking, then the above is a valid sequence of events by RAW.


In 3.5, it was even worse: you could 5' step as part of a readied action. Yes, you read that right - you could ready to attack, and then 5' step away.

However, there's a point where you shouldn't abuse the rules when you find a tactic that obviously goes against the spirit of what the game is trying to accomplish. To be clear, I'm all for clever tricks, but a line should be drawn by the players themselves. Otherwise it just become an arms race to see who can break the game the most... and everyone loses.


Byakko, I hate to tell you this (well, not really), but you can do that in Pathfinder too.

CRB p203 wrote:
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.

The game is not broken by this tactic. This tactic allows you to escape attack for an extra 2 rounds AT BEST. At worst, it negates a single attack while everyone else kills the offender.


bbangerter wrote:

Depends on if you believe readied actions (and AoO's) literally go off before the triggering event even starts, or if they only resolve before the triggering event resolves.

Ask yourself the following:
PC has combat reflexes and a high dex. Should NPC standing next to said PC be able to have the following happen to them?
Start to move and provoke an AoO.
Change their mind and retrieve a item from their bags, provoking an AoO.
Change their mind, quick draw their bow, and make a ranged attack provoking an AoO.
Change their mind again and cast a spell, provoking an AoO.
Change their mind again, drop prone as a free action, then stand up provoking an AoO.

If you believe a character can change their mind about what action they are taking, then the above is a valid sequence of events by RAW.

Not if AoO does not invalidate the action character was making. He was moving so if it was trip he can continue at whatever crawling speed he now have.

Sczarni

bbangerter wrote:


In a party? The melee guy loses one attack. The archer in the party rapid shots and kills half the CR 1/4. The mage fireballs the rest.

The melee guy doesn't really care because fighting a bunch of CR 1/4's was going to be boring anyway.

I have seen this complaint about readied actions to dodge attacks come up multiple times on these forums. The truth is though that its really a non-issue, it is never a problem for a party. And for a one on one is trivially easy to counter.

You seem to be missing the point. CR 1/4 creatures are only part of bigger picture. If they delayed party like this for 1d3 rounds, they were already successful. Second thing is that not every party is balanced. Some players don't have ranged options or mages in the party and even if they do, both of those characters have to mop up the front creatures because they know that martials can't kill them fast enough for some strange mechanical reason. Now repeat this scenario in every fight. People will soon be annoyed by it.


It is an artificial scenario. I seriously doubt this has EVER been an issue like certain people state it is.

It doesn't matter if the party is balanced or not. Two people will defeat this automatically.

GM: The goblins appear to be waiting for you.
Barbarian: I move up to the goblin and attack!
GM: Just before you attack he strikes at you and then 5' steps backwards. Your attack is foiled!
Other PC: Fine, I move to the guy that just 5' stepped back and attack him. Gang up on them guys! They can only do that to one of us at a time!

This "tactic" is so laughably easily beaten that all of peoples complaining about it is just so much poor theory. Any group with half a brain can defeat this "tactic".

So, if this "tactic" cannot be used against PCs with any degree of success what is the real complaint then?

That the PCs can do this to the GM's BBEG? The GM has total control there and can deal with it as needed with other creatures, feats, abilities or even intelligent play. BBEGs do not have to be stupid.

PFS? Well, yes, this is a problem in PFS where GMs are more hamstrung. Oh well, it is only PFS, it has plenty of issues already.

In case you have missed the point: This "tactic" works once or twice and rarely ever again as either the PCs wise up and use group tactics or the GM wises up and plays his monsters accordingly (group tactics or whatnot). This is not the game breaking problem you and others seem to think it is. Heck, it doesn't even violate basic concepts of battle for most of us.
Having been a bokken fighter earlier on in life, the idea of attacking right as someone is setting up to attack me (seeing position etc) and then backpedaling as they start that swing with the result that they miss seems spot on.
(Note: I am not saying I was some kind of professional, semi-profession, or even highly experienced bokken fighter, I was an idiot fighting other idiots with wooden swords and no armor, face, or neck guards in the classic idiot-waiting-to-land-in-the-hospital style. But, I did learn to read their moves and react before they completed them so this concept of readying an action to strike and back out of the way completely makes sense to me.)


I was not asking about the soundness of the kiting tactic. I was only asking about the mechanics of it. It is very important for this part of the rules discussion that we speak to mechanics, not efficiency. This scenario must involve only one attack by the attacker for the questions that I pose, not how to beat the tactic. Of course there are ways to do so.

BBT, you ask the perfect question: "However, if they never used their standard action, would it not still be available?"

Ozy, I understand your point, "The attacker can 5' step as part of the attack and perform a full round of melee attacks on the defender." But this is not 100% true. It cannot happen during an individual attack.

CRB p187 wrote:
You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.

So it comes down to one very important part. Does the start of the attack, the declaration so to speak, mean that the character has started the attack, or not?

That is where I always get tied up in these discussions. If the attack counts as started, as in the action economy is spent, then the kiting mechanic works. If the action is not counted as spent, the tactic does not work. This is because the 5' step can only happen before or after the actual attack.

If this tactic as I laid out works (mechanically), then so be it. But if the tactic does not work because the attacker still has a standard action, then the same should apply for when a person is tripped for starting to move out of a threatened square. If starting the attack does not use up the standard action, starting to move would not use up the move action.

As to the quality as a tactic, it would be great for a character in trouble that needs to delay getting hit for a round or two before her friends showed up. Or one that need to back out of a 5' hall so that all of her friends could attack the creature.

Gauss, it may not work in an open field with a group on group battle, and it is in no way an instant "win", but clearly there would be a time where it would be useful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gauss wrote:
Any group with half a brain can defeat this "tactic".

Sure, the group can. But the barbarian PC is in for a very rough game when he accomplishes nothing for the first two rounds of most combats.

Gauss wrote:

So, if this "tactic" cannot be used against PCs with any degree of success what is the real complaint then?

That the PCs can do this to the GM's BBEG? The GM has total control there and can deal with it as needed with other creatures, feats, abilities or even intelligent play. BBEGs do not have to be stupid.

It's not the BBEG I'm worried about. I hardly ever create BBEGs whose best opening tactic is charging into melee. And I never create BBEGs whose best opening defense is to spend his first two rounds to temporarily negate the party's martial guy - he needs to permanently negate that guy or do tactics that deal with the whole party.

It's all the other encounters where a group of bad guys can have ONE of their group negate the PC martial in the first two rounds and where the PCs can, if they want, negate several charging bad guys in every fight (hey, even the wizard can do this trick, ready his action to 5'Step and then cast whatever spell he wants, even if he doesn't cast it at the guy who charged him).

Gauss wrote:
This "tactic" works once or twice and rarely ever again as ... the GM wises up and plays his monsters accordingly (group tactics or whatnot).

That's not fair, nor is it good GMing.

Why would the ogre in the cave suddenly be too wise to charge the party and waste his first two rounds, just because the party used that tactic on a different ogre in the woods outside? The cave ogre didn't see what happened, and ogres love charging into battle, so the cave ogre would and should fall for the same tactic that the forest ogre did.

If the party had a good in-character tactic that ogres fall for, I will make every ogre fall for it unless they have a super good reason to already know about the tactic or maybe have some other reason to behave out of character for an ogre.

But this is not an in-character tactic. It's an immersion-breaking metagame loophole in the rules that can be exploited to gain an advantage.

As such, it deserves to be squashed.

Sczarni

Gauss wrote:

It is an artificial scenario. I seriously doubt this has EVER been an issue like certain people state it is.

It doesn't matter if the party is balanced or not. Two people will defeat this automatically.

You know what, you are probably right. It will rarely pop up that person will use this tactic and it remains completely vulnerable to other attack options but technically it's possible to stretch the fight. It somewhat invalidates melee martials also because nobody wants to miss that first attack and reinforces people to think to hard how to hit single target in melee. It's annoying tactic. If the devs confirm it's legality, I am not against it, but as it is, it's grey area open to interpretation.

Gauss wrote:
PFS? Well, yes, this is a problem in PFS where GMs are more hamstrung. Oh well, it is only PFS, it has plenty of issues already.

It's pretty big problem for PFS. As a PFS GM, I have seen a lot of different character builds, but as long as everyone is enjoying themselves, it's all good. This kind of tactic enables PCs generally far greater advantage due to action economy and they already have good enough advantage as it is.


DarkPhoenixx wrote:
bbangerter wrote:

Depends on if you believe readied actions (and AoO's) literally go off before the triggering event even starts, or if they only resolve before the triggering event resolves.

Ask yourself the following:
PC has combat reflexes and a high dex. Should NPC standing next to said PC be able to have the following happen to them?
Start to move and provoke an AoO.
Change their mind and retrieve a item from their bags, provoking an AoO.
Change their mind, quick draw their bow, and make a ranged attack provoking an AoO.
Change their mind again and cast a spell, provoking an AoO.
Change their mind again, drop prone as a free action, then stand up provoking an AoO.

If you believe a character can change their mind about what action they are taking, then the above is a valid sequence of events by RAW.

Not if AoO does not invalidate the action character was making. He was moving so if it was trip he can continue at whatever crawling speed he now have.

What portion of the rules makes this distinction? The distinction that if you can continue your action you must continue that action, but that if the action is no longer valid you get the choice to change to a completely different action?

Either you can choose a different action, or you can't.

The only thing the rules state on the matter is that after the readied action (or AoO) the character continues their actions.


Komoda wrote:
BBT, you ask the perfect question: "However, if they never used their standard action, would it not still be available?"

Never used it? They are using it to attack, otherwise the readied action never goes off.

Quote:

Ozy, I understand your point, "The attacker can 5' step as part of the attack and perform a full round of melee attacks on the defender." But this is not 100% true. It cannot happen during an individual attack.

CRB p187 wrote:
You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
So it comes down to one very important part. Does the start of the attack, the declaration so to speak, mean that the character has started the attack, or not?

They have started the standard attack action. That doesn't mean that their actual sword swing, or mace bash has started and gets automatically avoided, just like if you start a move action to move out of a threatened square, the AoO can hit you before you actually start to move. The attacker can then reconfigure his standard attack action how he chooses, including targeting a different valid enemy or making a 5' step and attacking. Heck, if he has quickdraw he can draw and throw a dagger, or draw and shoot a bow.

Quote:
That is where I always get tied up in these discussions. If the attack counts as started, as in the action economy is spent, then the kiting mechanic works. If the action is not counted as spent, the tactic does not work. This is because the 5' step can only happen before or after the actual attack.

There's a difference between starting the attack action, and actually starting to swing your blade. You can take a 5' step and continue your attack action (assuming you haven't already moved).

Quote:
If this tactic as I laid out works (mechanically), then so be it. But if the tactic does not work because the attacker still has a standard action, then the same should apply for when a person is tripped for starting to move out of a threatened square. If starting the attack does not use up the standard action, starting to move would not use up the move action.

It doesn't, if they are tripped while starting to move, they can still move using a crawl if they wish. I wouldn't recommend it. Heck, if they have a fly speed, they can even move using that. That doesn't mean that they get to substitute any other type of move action, however.

Quote:

As to the quality as a tactic, it would be great for a character in trouble that needs to delay getting hit for a round or two before her friends showed up. Or one that need to back out of a 5' hall so that all of her friends could attack the creature.

Gauss, it may not work in an open field with a group on group battle, and it is in no way an instant "win", but clearly there would be a time where it would be useful.

In those situations, a withdraw action would work as well if not better. Assuming a reasonable base speed, you could actually delay being hit for hours by just running away constantly.

Don't see anyone b%$%%ing about that though.


DM_Blake wrote:
It's all the other encounters where a group of bad guys can have ONE of their group negate the PC martial in the first two rounds and where the PCs can, if they want, negate several charging bad guys in every fight (hey, even the wizard can do this trick, ready his action to 5'Step and then cast whatever spell he wants, even if he doesn't cast it at the guy who charged him).

And how does the GM guarantee that the melee will attack that one specific guy instead of someone else?


NikolaiJuno wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
It's all the other encounters where a group of bad guys can have ONE of their group negate the PC martial in the first two rounds and where the PCs can, if they want, negate several charging bad guys in every fight (hey, even the wizard can do this trick, ready his action to 5'Step and then cast whatever spell he wants, even if he doesn't cast it at the guy who charged him).
And how does the GM guarantee that the melee will attack that one specific guy instead of someone else?

Could be just a matter of positioning. The charging PC probably won't charge past any AoOs to hit someone in the back of the group; he'll probably charge the nearest enemy. Or the weakest. Or the spellcaster. The enemies can probably make very good assumptions based on who they are and where they stand.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Komoda wrote:
BBT, you ask the perfect question: "However, if they never used their standard action, would it not still be available?"

Never used it? They are using it to attack, otherwise the readied action never goes off.

Quote:

Ozy, I understand your point, "The attacker can 5' step as part of the attack and perform a full round of melee attacks on the defender." But this is not 100% true. It cannot happen during an individual attack.

CRB p187 wrote:
You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
So it comes down to one very important part. Does the start of the attack, the declaration so to speak, mean that the character has started the attack, or not?

They have started the standard attack action. That doesn't mean that their actual sword swing, or mace bash has started and gets automatically avoided, just like if you start a move action to move out of a threatened square, the AoO can hit you before you actually start to move. The attacker can then reconfigure his standard attack action how he chooses, including targeting a different valid enemy or making a 5' step and attacking. Heck, if he has quickdraw he can draw and throw a dagger, or draw and shoot a bow.

Quote:
That is where I always get tied up in these discussions. If the attack counts as started, as in the action economy is spent, then the kiting mechanic works. If the action is not counted as spent, the tactic does not work. This is because the 5' step can only happen before or after the actual attack.

There's a difference between starting the attack action, and actually starting to swing your blade. You can take a 5' step and continue your attack action (assuming you haven't already moved).

Quote:
If this tactic as I laid out works (mechanically), then so be it. But if the tactic does not work because the attacker still has a standard action, then the same should apply for when a person is tripped for starting to move out of a
...

I believe your response skirts the questions posed. The only part of the standard action that they have started IS the actual sword swing. They can't start it, without starting it. You cannot "start" your attack, 5' step, then "finish" your attack. If they have not started their actual attack, there is no trigger that allows the readied action to happen.

If you have not used your attack, which many will say is the case, then you have not used your move action if you were tripped. If you have not used your move action, you still have it to do something else. It cannot be both ways. I believe you are advocating for both ways without even realizing that you are.


If he's charging, the tactic won't work at all. The single attack is part of the charge action, so the attacker can continue the charge to close within range to attack.


Dude, you are confusing the attack action with things like actual weapon swings. You are making assumptions not supported by the rules. If I trigger the ready action by attacking, all that means is that I have started an attack action. I've declared "I'm attacking X" I can incorporate free actions and non actions like the 5 foot step as I see fit. I'm not committed to striking with a sword until I make the attack roll.

You don't like this tactic, but seem super committed to making sure it's more powerful than it actually is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
There's a difference between starting the attack action, and actually starting to swing your blade. You can take a 5' step and continue your attack action (assuming you haven't already moved).

How do you specifically ready for that?

I don't mean in gamist chess terms. Fine. Clearly the rules suggest that we can.

I mean if you and I were at the flagpole after school. You "ready" yourself for my charge. Do you:

Ready for me to stop moving?
Ready for me to start punching?

Maybe, maybe not.

But your suggestion is that you:

Ready for me to stop moving and start attacking but before I actually do anything that looks like an attack - somehow magically detecting the precise nanosecond where my "attack" starts without starting to attack.

In real life, I don't know how do define that nanosecond. I've defeated black-belts in sparring tournaments and have the trophies to prove it, but I cannot even imagine defining that nanosecond where an attack has begun but before the attack starts.

That's because in real life, we don't take "actions" in combat. We just make attacks. There is no dividing line where we can say "I'm done moving and now I'm attacking but I haven't started to actually make an attack yet." That line doesn't exist in reality; I can't define it and you can't observe it and you definitely can't ready for it.

It's just a gamist concept.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Dude, you are confusing the attack action with things like actual weapon swings. You are making assumptions not supported by the rules. If I trigger the ready action by attacking, all that means is that I have started an attack action. I've declared "I'm attacking X" I can incorporate free actions and non actions like the 5 foot step as I see fit. I'm not committed to striking with a sword until I make the attack roll.

You're fixated on this gamist concept that somehow an orc can detect the exact specific nanosecond where the PC switches from his move action to his standard action even though the PC has not begun to actually attack.

The PC's player (who is playing a game) makes a gamist statement to the GM "I'm attacking this orc" and somehow the orc magically hears that declaration. Talk about breaking the 4th wall...

I suggest that there is no way for the orc to ready for the the start of a standard action being used to attack; he must ready for the actual movement of the PC's arm and weapon, something he can see and understand and react to.

Not that it really matters; the tactic works either way. The orc can just wait for the actual attack (not the action) to begin and that can be his trigger condition so now he can hit the PC and move away and totally neutralize that PC's entire round.


DM_Blake wrote:
I suggest that there is no way for the orc to ready for the the start of a standard action being used to attack; he must ready for the actual movement of the PC's arm and weapon, something he can see and understand and react to.

In a mechanical sense initiating the attack like that would be making the attack roll, once that has happened the attack can not be negated by moving. The only mechanical way to negate the attack is to ready for the start of the action that allowed the attack.


DM_Blake wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Dude, you are confusing the attack action with things like actual weapon swings. You are making assumptions not supported by the rules. If I trigger the ready action by attacking, all that means is that I have started an attack action. I've declared "I'm attacking X" I can incorporate free actions and non actions like the 5 foot step as I see fit. I'm not committed to striking with a sword until I make the attack roll.

You're fixated on this gamist concept that somehow an orc can detect the exact specific nanosecond where the PC switches from his move action to his standard action even though the PC has not begun to actually attack.

The PC's player (who is playing a game) makes a gamist statement to the GM "I'm attacking this orc" and somehow the orc magically hears that declaration. Talk about breaking the 4th wall...

I suggest that there is no way for the orc to ready for the the start of a standard action being used to attack; he must ready for the actual movement of the PC's arm and weapon, something he can see and understand and react to.

Not that it really matters; the tactic works either way. The orc can just wait for the actual attack (not the action) to begin and that can be his trigger condition so now he can hit the PC and move away and totally neutralize that PC's entire round.

And you're fixated on an artificial differentiation between 'gamism' and playing the Pathfinder game where everything is specified in well defined yet somewhat abstract concepts.

If I ready an action to attack when someone is casting a spell, do I have to describe what actions I'm looking for? The presentation of a holy symbol, the waving around of the hands and fingers, the specific utterances of magical language?

Of course not. That's ridiculous.

Instead, I ready an action for 'when someone starts to cast a spell', meaning when someone chooses a 'cast a spell' action.

Just like when I ready an action for when I'm attacked by a melee weapon, I mean when someone chooses the 'attack action' with a melee weapon. And the attack action allows more than just an attack roll like 5' step and free actions.

You can't ready an action for an attack roll, an attack roll isn't an action.


Ozy,

It is not about whether I like the tactic or not. I am trying to identify the exact, underlying, logic. Once identified, we can see how well it works. We can also apply that logic to other parts of the game that work the same way.

It isn't about feelings or fairness. It is about the logic behind the rules. The exact nature of which, is often debated.

My feelings about the tactic were expressed early on. That does not mean I think it is invalid RAW wise. As such, I am interested in debating the how's and why's with anyone else that is willing to go into the step by step nature of the actions and define the exact line where things happen. Defining this line always seems to be the big debate.

Most people fall into one of two camps, in my experience. Either the trigger happens BEFORE the attack, and the attack is not thwarted or the trigger happens AFTER the attack starts but before resolved and therefore it is thwarted. You seem to fall into a third camp that I have never seen before. I believe you are claiming that it happens AFTER the attack action starts, but BEFORE the actual swing starts, thereby it is NOT thwarted AND you can make a 5' step in the middle of it. Again, I have never seen this position before and I am interested in exploring it until one of us convinces the other of their position.

I believe the actual weapon swing is what you are allowed to 5' step before or after, not in the middle of. You cannot start a disarm weapon swing 10' from an opponent, avoiding an AoO since you are out of range, step 5' in and disarm someone.

That is the logic of the game. It must be applied to all like things for the game to work. Following the logic of your claim, you could very well disarm like that.


Komoda wrote:

I believe your response skirts the questions posed. The only part of the standard action that they have started IS the actual sword swing. They can't start it, without starting it. You cannot "start" your attack, 5' step, then "finish" your attack. If they have not started their actual attack, there is no trigger that allows the readied action to happen.

If you have not used your attack, which many will say is the case, then you have not used your move action if you were tripped. If you have not used your move action, you still have it to do something else. It cannot be both ways. I believe you are advocating for both ways without even realizing that you are.

No, you are incorrect. The only part of the standard action that they have started is the 'attack action'. They have not started the attack roll because you can't interrupt an attack roll.

You can actually start your attack action, take a 5' step, and finish your attack action. Once again you are confusing what it means to take an attack action, and ready with an attack action trigger.

It has nothing to do with 'used' or 'lost', it has to do with started and finished. When you start an action, be it an attack action or a move action, you can be interrupted by an AoO or readied action.

You don't 'lose' your action when it is interrupted, you get to finish it after the interruption. So, you can finish your move action (if you're prone you can crawl/fly), and you can finish your attack action (choose other target, 5' step, etc...)

You can't use that action to 'do something else' that is not the action you started. So, you can't change your 'movement' move action to a 'stand up from prone' move action. You can't change your 'attack' standard action to a cleave standard action, a substitute move action, or a drink a potion standard action.

100% consistent, once you understand that it's not about using and losing, but rather starting and finishing.


_Ozy_ wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Dude, you are confusing the attack action with things like actual weapon swings. You are making assumptions not supported by the rules. If I trigger the ready action by attacking, all that means is that I have started an attack action. I've declared "I'm attacking X" I can incorporate free actions and non actions like the 5 foot step as I see fit. I'm not committed to striking with a sword until I make the attack roll.

You're fixated on this gamist concept that somehow an orc can detect the exact specific nanosecond where the PC switches from his move action to his standard action even though the PC has not begun to actually attack.

The PC's player (who is playing a game) makes a gamist statement to the GM "I'm attacking this orc" and somehow the orc magically hears that declaration. Talk about breaking the 4th wall...

I suggest that there is no way for the orc to ready for the the start of a standard action being used to attack; he must ready for the actual movement of the PC's arm and weapon, something he can see and understand and react to.

Not that it really matters; the tactic works either way. The orc can just wait for the actual attack (not the action) to begin and that can be his trigger condition so now he can hit the PC and move away and totally neutralize that PC's entire round.

And you're fixated on an artificial differentiation between 'gamism' and playing the Pathfinder game where everything is specified in well defined yet somewhat abstract concepts.

If I ready an action to attack when someone is casting a spell, do I have to describe what actions I'm looking for? The presentation of a holy symbol, the waving around of the hands and fingers, the specific utterances of magical language?

Of course not. That's ridiculous.

Instead, I ready an action for 'when someone starts to cast a spell', meaning when someone chooses a 'cast a spell' action.

Just like when I ready an action for when I'm attacked by a melee...

This position counters your own claim that the trigger is so finite that it is a miniscule part of the attack action and not the attack itself. You are the one that separated the "attack action" from the "weapon swing" and now you are calling out someone else for saying they can't imagine how you could do that, in real life or via the rules.


Komoda wrote:

Ozy,

It is not about whether I like the tactic or not. I am trying to identify the exact, underlying, logic. Once identified, we can see how well it works. We can also apply that logic to other parts of the game that work the same way.

It isn't about feelings or fairness. It is about the logic behind the rules. The exact nature of which, is often debated.

My feelings about the tactic were expressed early on. That does not mean I think it is invalid RAW wise. As such, I am interested in debating the how's and why's with anyone else that is willing to go into the step by step nature of the actions and define the exact line where things happen. Defining this line always seems to be the big debate.

Most people fall into one of two camps, in my experience. Either the trigger happens BEFORE the attack, and the attack is not thwarted or the trigger happens AFTER the attack starts but before resolved and therefore it is thwarted. You seem to fall into a third camp that I have never seen before. I believe you are claiming that it happens AFTER the attack action starts, but BEFORE the actual swing starts, thereby it is NOT thwarted AND you can make a 5' step in the middle of it. Again, I have never seen this position before and I am interested in exploring it until one of us convinces the other of their position.

I believe the actual weapon swing is what you are allowed to 5' step before or after, not in the middle of. You cannot start a disarm weapon swing 10' from an opponent, avoiding an AoO since you are out of range, step 5' in and disarm someone.

That is the logic of the game. It must be applied to all like things for the game to work. Following the logic of your claim, you could very well disarm like that.

There is no time between a weapon swing and the roll. The roll is the swing. If you haven't rolled, you haven't swung. I agree you can't 5' step between making the attack roll and applying the hit/damage. Nor can you make the roll to diarm, 5' step, and apply the disarm.

But that seems to be what you are saying. That an attacker rolls the d20, the defender then 5' steps and the attack misses.

That's not how readied actions work, and you are misrepresenting what I am saying.

If I want to perform a disarm attack, I can 5' step and then make the roll that provokes the AoO. There is no time between the roll and the disarm attempt, either to 5' step OR to interrupt with a readied action. That is your illogical result.


And my point is, you are not taking a 5' step as part of the attack action. It is not even an option to do so. It must be before or after the attack action. It could be before or after individual attacks in a full attack action, but it still cannot be in the middle of any individual attack.


Komoda wrote:
This position counters your own claim that the trigger is so finite that it is a miniscule part of the attack action and not the attack itself. You are the one that separated the "attack action" from the "weapon swing" and now you are calling out someone else for saying they can't imagine how you could do that, in real life or via the rules.

Frankly, I can't even understand what you are trying to say here.

Of course an attack action is distinct from the weapon swing:

Quote:
You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.

The rules say, definitevly, that you can take a 5' step during an attack action. Since you can 5' step during an attack action then by definition an attack action encompasses more than just a die roll to hit. Likewise, you can do a free action draw a weapon during an attack action.

So, unless you can explain to me how you can draw a sword in mid-swing, I think you have to agree that an attack action is not identically equal to a weapon swing.


Komoda wrote:
And my point is, you are not taking a 5' step as part of the attack action. It is not even an option to do so. It must be before or after the attack action. It could be before or after individual attacks in a full attack action, but it still cannot be in the middle of any individual attack.

It's not in the middle of any individual attack, it's done during the attack action, as pointed out in the RAW I just posted.

Further proof that an attack action is not the same thing as an individual attack swing.

Sczarni

_Ozy_ wrote:


There is no time between a weapon swing and the roll. The roll is the swing. If you haven't rolled, you haven't swung.

So if you haven't swung, how did you waste an action in the first place? If you tried to explain this to a new player, I would imagine them being baffled by it.


As an outside third party, I feel Ozy is lacking in this communication with Komoda. I feel Komoda is accurately representing Ozy, but Ozy isn't accurately representing Komoda. So hopefully this can be clarified to help progress the conversation. Not saying one is right or not, but sharing my view of this conversation.

Now as an invested third party ;) Ozy, I'm readying an action for when you attack me. So once you start attacking me my readied action will go off, then I move, now you can finish your attack against me but I am no longer in reach of your swing so you miss. I'm not readying for when you take the attack action, but when you are actually attacking me. Thus you can't change the target of your swing, nor could you take your 5ft step as you've already started to attack.


Malag wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:


There is no time between a weapon swing and the roll. The roll is the swing. If you haven't rolled, you haven't swung.
So if you haven't swung, how did you waste an action in the first place? If you tried to explain this to a new player, I would imagine them being baffled by it.

You didn't waste your action! Dude, read my frickin' posts.

If there is another valid target, you can hit it. If you haven't moved you can 5' step and hit the original target.

YOU HAVE NOT LOST YOUR ATTACK, you have just started it. You get to finish your attack using any legal means.

The only reason this tactic sometimes works is that there isn't another target and you've already moved so you can't 5' step. That means you can no longer attack the original target. However, if you have the correct feats you could:

quickdraw a dagger and throw it
quickdraw a reach weapon and hit him
quickdraw a bow and shoot him
use the step up feat and smack him anyways.

I'll repeat it one more time: YOU DON'T LOSE YOUR ATTACK

Man, it's frustrating when you have to post something several times.


Chess Pwn wrote:

As an outside third party, I feel Ozy is lacking in this communication with Komoda. I feel Komoda is accurately representing Ozy, but Ozy isn't accurately representing Komoda. So hopefully this can be clarified to help progress the conversation. Not saying one is right or not, but sharing my view of this conversation.

Now as an invested third party ;) Ozy, I'm readying an action for when you attack me. So once you start attacking me my readied action will go off, then I move, now you can finish your attack against me but I am no longer in reach of your swing so you miss. I'm not readying for when you take the attack action, but when you are actually attacking me. Thus you can't change the target of your swing, nor could you take your 5ft step as you've already started to attack.

You can't do that. I haven't selected you as the target until I roll the die. I haven't made the swing until I roll the die. If I roll the die, you no longer can interrupt, sorry.

You can ready for the start of the attack action, but you can't interrupt the actual die roll.


Let me break it all down together, we are getting jumbled responding so quickly.

1) I am saying that the attacker starts the attack.
2) Once the attack starts, there is nothing the attacker can do except finish, or abandon the attack.
3) Then the defender steps away, since the triggered action was the attack. Once the defender steps away, we are back to the attackers two options: Finish or abandon the attack.
4) As there is no one within reach to attack, finishing or abandoning the attack means one of two things.
....A) It either means the action (attack) is spent OR
....B) because the Readied Action happens BEFORE the action (attack) that triggers it, the action (attack) is not spent.

I lean towards B. Because the defender moved 5' BEFORE the attack, the attacker is good to change his action. He could then 5' step and bash the person that readied the action. A lot of people seem to agree with this position and claim that the 5' step kiting only works once or so in limited situations.

I claim that if B is true, B must apply to the trip AoO. If the attacker from above does not lose his standard action that gave him the attack in the first place, the person that provoked a trip due to movement does not lose his movement action.

A lot of people clearly disagree with this position. But it is the same exact logic applied to both parts. A lot of people will also say option A works for the kiting 5' step attack because the 5' step can be taken DURING the attack. The problem is, it cannot. It can only be taken BEFORE or AFTER the individual attack. That is why I am delving so deeply into the nuances of when each part of the individual actions truly happen. People in this forum specifically have said the 5' Tactic doesn't work because the attacker can finish movement or 5' step and the like, but in other forums state that the tripped person loses their action.

It all comes down to why does the tripped person lose their action that resulted in no action, yet the attacker in my scenario does not? If the resolution of the readied/AoO action is followed the same in both the 5' step kiting and the tripped provoker, either both lose their actions, or both do not.


This is the part of RAW that you are missing, in regards to 5' Steps and attacks:

CRB p187 wrote:
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

As an outside third party, I feel Ozy is lacking in this communication with Komoda. I feel Komoda is accurately representing Ozy, but Ozy isn't accurately representing Komoda. So hopefully this can be clarified to help progress the conversation. Not saying one is right or not, but sharing my view of this conversation.

Now as an invested third party ;) Ozy, I'm readying an action for when you attack me. So once you start attacking me my readied action will go off, then I move, now you can finish your attack against me but I am no longer in reach of your swing so you miss. I'm not readying for when you take the attack action, but when you are actually attacking me. Thus you can't change the target of your swing, nor could you take your 5ft step as you've already started to attack.

You can't do that. I haven't selected you as the target until I roll the die. I haven't made the swing until I roll the die. If I roll the die, you no longer can interrupt, sorry.

You can ready for the start of the attack action, but you can't interrupt the actual die roll.

See this is a big clarification of your stance. If I understand correctly you're saying I can't ready an action for when you attack me. Again, if I'm understanding correctly, you're saying Kiting can't work because the readied action this is all based off of is an illegal readied action. Am I correct in my understanding of what you're saying.

Sczarni

@Komoda

4,B) Is how I interpret it as well. Readying triggers, but attacker doesn't lose "attack action" or in other words, attacker didn't even begin his standard action so he can continue moving if he has any move left.

151 to 200 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Kiting with 5' Steps??? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.