Kiting with 5' Steps???


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Komoda wrote:

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.

Um, yeah, because an attack != an attack action. Because as I already posted, RAW says you can take 5' step during your action.

A readied action does not interrupt an attack, it interrupts the action used to make the attack.


_Ozy_ wrote:
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.

Without a doubt, I am sure that you cannot change your weapon in the middle of the attack or attack someone else. You either finish the attack, abandon it, or it did not happen, as the Readied Action happens BEFORE the action that triggers it.

It is absolutely not, "My valid target moved out of range in the middle of an attack so I draw a different reach weapon and now hit him with the same attack."


I think I should post the rules again:

Quote:
You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.

You continue the action. Not, your action never happened. Not, you lose your action. You continue your action. And since the readied attack occurs before that action that is being continued you are at the absolute beginning, the start of that action.

Which means I'm at the start of a standard action used to attack, the start of a move action to move, and so on. I don't get to change the type of action I'm doing, but I sure can avail myself of all my options legal to that action type, including free action quickdraw, 5' step, and so on.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Komoda wrote:

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.

Um, yeah, because an attack != an attack action. Because as I already posted, RAW says you can take 5' step during your action.

A readied action does not interrupt an attack, it interrupts the action used to make the attack.

I think we divert from the fundamentals of the game here.

I am pretty confident that the game treats interrupting of the action that is the attack as interrupting the attack.

I have never heard a claim other wise. If you interrupt part of a full attack action, you are interrupting the individual attack, not all of them made as part of that attack.


Malag wrote:

@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.

But if the attacker didn't even begin his standard action to attack he never triggers the readied action, thus everything die from falling rocks.

The way I view if and that I feel Komoda is arguing for, but is personally against, is that he is attacking, and thus can finish his attack or lose the action, and since his target isn't in reach he looses the action.

EDIT: Changed the second part for clarity.


_Ozy_ wrote:

I think I should post the rules again:

Quote:
You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.

You continue the action. Not, your action never happened. Not, you lose your action. You continue your action. And since the readied attack occurs before that action that is being continued you are at the absolute beginning, the start of that action.

Which means I'm at the start of a standard action used to attack, the start of a move action to move, and so on. I don't get to change the type of action I'm doing, but I sure can avail myself of all my options legal to that action type, including free action quickdraw, 5' step, and so on.

"Continuing his actions" can be read two different ways.

1) "Continue his actions" in the same exact manner with no regard for the changes that have incurred due to the interruption.
2) "Continue his actions" as in he can now finish the actions available to him for the round.


_Ozy_ wrote:

I think I should post the rules again:

Quote:
You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.

You continue the action. Not, your action never happened. Not, you lose your action. You continue your action. And since the readied attack occurs before that action that is being continued you are at the absolute beginning, the start of that action.

Which means I'm at the start of a standard action used to attack, the start of a move action to move, and so on. I don't get to change the type of action I'm doing, but I sure can avail myself of all my options legal to that action type, including free action quickdraw, 5' step, and so on.

You started your attack against me, I moved out of reach, you are no longer capable of continuing your attack against me.

Also you're hitting the EXACT question that Komoda has a FAQ thread for. Because if you can change your action then you never triggered my readied action and rocks fall and we're all dead.

Sczarni

Chess Pwn wrote:
Malag wrote:

@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.

But if the attacker didn't even begin his standard action to attack he never triggers the readied action, thus everything die from falling rocks.

He does. Problem is how you interpret the attack itself. Person is hitting person. Person isn't hitting square. You can't "auto-dodge" attack. This is what AC is for.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Malag wrote:

@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.

But if the attacker didn't even begin his standard action to attack he never triggers the readied action, thus everything die from falling rocks.

The way I view that Komoda is arguing but against is that he is attacking, and thus can finish his attack or lose the action, and since his target isn't in reach he looses the action.

I see this argument often and it is not invalid. The problem lies with separating the turned based nature of the game from the in-game actions. One can easily explain it away in two different ways:

1) It is a telegraphing of intent that leaves an opening for the AoO or Readied Action. Therefore the both Threatening and Readied characters have a way to go when planned but without "breaking" the world.

2) The other is to understand, as the Devs have pointed out, there HAD to be a defining line and they absolutely did not want that dividing line to be in the middle of an action.

It is hard to believe it now, but I was not trying to turn this into this debate again. I just see no way to resolve the OPs question without resolving this question. The answer to this question is required to know if the 5' step kiting works, per RAW.

BBT asked early, something to the effect of, "Can't the attacker just continue his movement?" And that answer lies directly in when exactly the readied action goes off and what exactly does it interrupt.


Malag wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Malag wrote:

@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.

But if the attacker didn't even begin his standard action to attack he never triggers the readied action, thus everything die from falling rocks.
He does. Problem is how you interpret the attack itself. Person is hitting person. Person isn't hitting square. You can't "auto-dodge" attack. This is what AC is for.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying.

"He does." He does what? Who is he.

"Problem is how you interpret the attack itself." I feel I understand this one, you're saying that my problem is with how I'm interpreting the attack

"Person is hitting person." I agree that an attack is when a person is trying to hit another person

"Person isn't hitting square." While a person can hit a square, you are correct that the person probably is attack the person in the square, not the square.

"You can't "auto-dodge" attack." This is something we disagree on kinda. I'm not "auto-dodging" I'm using a readied action to be out of your attack range to make you unable to continue your attack against me.

"This is what AC is for." AC is for passive defense, and not moving. In this kiting I am using my standard action and am moving which square I am in.


Komoda wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Komoda wrote:

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.

Um, yeah, because an attack != an attack action. Because as I already posted, RAW says you can take 5' step during your action.

A readied action does not interrupt an attack, it interrupts the action used to make the attack.

I think we divert from the fundamentals of the game here.

I am pretty confident that the game treats interrupting of the action that is the attack as interrupting the attack.

I have never heard a claim other wise. If you interrupt part of a full attack action, you are interrupting the individual attack, not all of them made as part of that attack.

It's interrupting the attack action not the die roll. I've never heard it played otherwise. You have multiple attack actions as part of a full attack, and you can 5' step as part of any of those attack actions, you can also free action quickdraw as part of any of those attack actions.


It comes down to this:

If you believe that the 5' Kiting is legal, you must believe that one CANNOT change their actions based on the fact that the Readied Action and AoO happen BEFORE the resolution but AFTER the trigger.

If you believe that the 5' Kiting is not legal, (or doesn't work), you must believe that one can change their actions based on the fact that the Readied Action and AoO happen BEFORE the resolution and BEFORE the trigger.

My whole point, in this thread, was to show that the step-by-step logic matches.


Komoda wrote:

"Continuing his actions" can be read two different ways.

1) "Continue his actions" in the same exact manner with no regard for the changes that have incurred due to the interruption.
2) "Continue his actions" as in he can now finish the actions available to him for the round.

It can be read a heck of a lot more ways than just those two, and I think both of those are wrong.

1) is NEVER the case. You can always choose to not attack or do something else up until you actually roll the dice.

I read it as

3) you can continue the action that you started that triggered the readied action in the first place, since that is consistent with the RAW readying rules, whereas both 1 and 2 contradict the rules.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Komoda wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Komoda wrote:

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.

Um, yeah, because an attack != an attack action. Because as I already posted, RAW says you can take 5' step during your action.

A readied action does not interrupt an attack, it interrupts the action used to make the attack.

I think we divert from the fundamentals of the game here.

I am pretty confident that the game treats interrupting of the action that is the attack as interrupting the attack.

I have never heard a claim other wise. If you interrupt part of a full attack action, you are interrupting the individual attack, not all of them made as part of that attack.

It's interrupting the attack action not the die roll. I've never heard it played otherwise. You have multiple attack actions as part of a full attack, and you can 5' step as part of any of those attack actions, you can also free action quickdraw as part of any of those attack actions.

You can quickdraw before or after any of the individual attacks. You cannot quickdraw in the middle of any of the individual attacks.

There is no distinction between the individual attack and the die roll to resolve it.

We have clearly diverged too far and are not even debating anything close to rules now.


Komoda wrote:

It comes down to this:

If you believe that the 5' Kiting is legal, you must believe that one CANNOT change their actions based on the fact that the Readied Action and AoO happen BEFORE the resolution but AFTER the trigger.

If you believe that the 5' Kiting is not legal, (or doesn't work), you must believe that one can change their actions based on the fact that the Readied Action and AoO happen BEFORE the resolution and BEFORE the trigger.

My whole point, in this thread, was to show that the step-by-step logic matches.

You cannot change the action: if you're making an attack action, you can't change it to a move action, if you're moving, you can't change that to a stand from prone action.

However, you CAN change what happens during your action. I 5' step then attack, I crawl 5', I fly 30', I quickdraw a dagger then throw.

In other words, no, your statements do not follow.


Komoda wrote:

You can quickdraw before or after any of the individual attacks. You cannot quickdraw in the middle of any of the individual attacks.

There is no distinction between the individual attack and the die roll to resolve it.

We have clearly diverged too far and are not even debating anything close to rules now.

I agree with all of that. However, I'm talking about attack actions, not individual attacks, which RAW says you can take a 5' step during, and you can free action quickdraw during.

Once again, a die roll != an attack action. You can't 5' step during a die roll, you can 5' step during an attack action.

If you don't think you can 5' step during an attack action, despite it being RAW, in black and white, then I don't think we're going to converge anytime soon.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Komoda wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Komoda wrote:

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.

Um, yeah, because an attack != an attack action. Because as I already posted, RAW says you can take 5' step during your action.

A readied action does not interrupt an attack, it interrupts the action used to make the attack.

I think we divert from the fundamentals of the game here.

I am pretty confident that the game treats interrupting of the action that is the attack as interrupting the attack.

I have never heard a claim other wise. If you interrupt part of a full attack action, you are interrupting the individual attack, not all of them made as part of that attack.

It's interrupting the attack action not the die roll. I've never heard it played otherwise. You have multiple attack actions as part of a full attack, and you can 5' step as part of any of those attack actions, you can also free action quickdraw as part of any of those attack actions.

WOW am I reading this right? Are you really saying that a full attack is really multiple attack actions!? That would mean in your games I can full attack with Vital Strikes! I guess that's a fair trade :D


_Ozy_ wrote:
Komoda wrote:

You can quickdraw before or after any of the individual attacks. You cannot quickdraw in the middle of any of the individual attacks.

There is no distinction between the individual attack and the die roll to resolve it.

We have clearly diverged too far and are not even debating anything close to rules now.

I agree with all of that. However, I'm talking about attack actions, not individual attacks, which RAW says you can take a 5' step during, and you can free action quickdraw during.

Once again, a die roll != an attack action. You can't 5' step during a die roll, you can 5' step during an attack action.

If you don't think you can 5' step during an attack action, despite it being RAW, in black and white, then I don't think we're going to converge anytime soon.

I am just applying the rest of RAW that says you can move Before or After the attack rather than just reading one part of it.


The rules are not inconsistent unless you think that you can interrupt a die roll.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Komoda wrote:

You can quickdraw before or after any of the individual attacks. You cannot quickdraw in the middle of any of the individual attacks.

There is no distinction between the individual attack and the die roll to resolve it.

We have clearly diverged too far and are not even debating anything close to rules now.

I agree with all of that. However, I'm talking about attack actions, not individual attacks, which RAW says you can take a 5' step during, and you can free action quickdraw during.

Once again, a die roll != an attack action. You can't 5' step during a die roll, you can 5' step during an attack action.

If you don't think you can 5' step during an attack action, despite it being RAW, in black and white, then I don't think we're going to converge anytime soon.

Ozy I continue to feel that you are not understanding Komoda very well. Also I feel that your view of the rules and others view of the rules(at least mine and probably Komoda's) are not in agreement. It's kinda like talking in British English and American English. Some words are the same but mean different things. So unless we get a clarification on the meaning the communication doesn't go very well.


Chess Pwn wrote:

WOW am I reading this right? Are you really saying that a full attack is really multiple attack actions!? That would mean in your games I can full attack with Vital Strikes! I guess that's a fair trade :D

You're right. The attacks during a full round attack are not attack actions, an attack action is a standard action. That was my mistake.

Nonetheless, the readied action would interrupt before any of the triggered attacks, the 1st, 2nd, and so on, so the attacker could then 5' step and continue the attack sequence as per normal, or free action quickdraw and continue the attack sequence as per normal.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

WOW am I reading this right? Are you really saying that a full attack is really multiple attack actions!? That would mean in your games I can full attack with Vital Strikes! I guess that's a fair trade :D

You're right. The attacks during a full round attack are not attack actions, an attack action is a standard action. That was my mistake.

Nonetheless, the readied action would interrupt before any of the triggered attacks, the 1st, 2nd, and so on, so the attacker could then 5' step and continue the attack sequence as per normal, or free action quickdraw and continue the attack sequence as per normal.

And on this everyone has already agreed, it is the "counter" to this tactic. move in close to him without attacking. Then use your first attack to provoke his readied action. Then take the 5ft step and finish the rest of your attack against him.

The thing that I feel is being disagreed on is Komoda's FAQ question. You feel one way, I believe Komoda agrees with your view, but many posters feel the other way, which is why Komoda made his FAQ thread.


Chess Pwn wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Komoda wrote:

You can quickdraw before or after any of the individual attacks. You cannot quickdraw in the middle of any of the individual attacks.

There is no distinction between the individual attack and the die roll to resolve it.

We have clearly diverged too far and are not even debating anything close to rules now.

I agree with all of that. However, I'm talking about attack actions, not individual attacks, which RAW says you can take a 5' step during, and you can free action quickdraw during.

Once again, a die roll != an attack action. You can't 5' step during a die roll, you can 5' step during an attack action.

If you don't think you can 5' step during an attack action, despite it being RAW, in black and white, then I don't think we're going to converge anytime soon.

Ozy I continue to feel that you are not understanding Komoda very well. Also I feel that your view of the rules and others view of the rules(at least mine and probably Komoda's) are not in agreement. It's kinda like talking in British English and American English. Some words are the same but mean different things. So unless we get a clarification on the meaning the communication doesn't go very well.

And I feel I am understanding him fine, but that he happens to be wrong. Furthermore, making posts like that don't really aid to the discussion since I'm not deliberately trying to mislead or obscure what he is saying. Lots of people have lots of misunderstandings of the rules. I've learned a lot of things reading these boards, and changed my mind on many occasions. I'm sure there are still things I'm getting wrong.

Heck, I've seen posts by developers that are clearly wrong, usually by commenting about things they aren't very familiar with.

That said, he is making many logical errors throughout his posts by insisting that there are only a couple of ways of interpreting something (which favor his point of view) and that interpreting something in a particular way necessarily leads to something that it does not.


Chess Pwn wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

WOW am I reading this right? Are you really saying that a full attack is really multiple attack actions!? That would mean in your games I can full attack with Vital Strikes! I guess that's a fair trade :D

You're right. The attacks during a full round attack are not attack actions, an attack action is a standard action. That was my mistake.

Nonetheless, the readied action would interrupt before any of the triggered attacks, the 1st, 2nd, and so on, so the attacker could then 5' step and continue the attack sequence as per normal, or free action quickdraw and continue the attack sequence as per normal.

And on this everyone has already agreed, it is the "counter" to this tactic. move in close to him without attacking. Then use your first attack to provoke his readied action. Then take the 5ft step and finish the rest of your attack against him.

Er, no, I don't think Komoda agrees with this at all. The fact that you think he agrees with this makes me think that it's you who isn't understand what he is saying.

Furthermore, just to clarify, none of your attacks are 'lost' if they trigger the action, as the interrupt occurs before you roll the die. If the 1st attack triggers the readied action, you can still 5' step and get your full round of attacks on the defender.


If I "declare" a charge and provoke an AoO in the first square for moving out of a threatened square and I am tripped, what actions are available to me?


_Ozy_ wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

WOW am I reading this right? Are you really saying that a full attack is really multiple attack actions!? That would mean in your games I can full attack with Vital Strikes! I guess that's a fair trade :D

You're right. The attacks during a full round attack are not attack actions, an attack action is a standard action. That was my mistake.

Nonetheless, the readied action would interrupt before any of the triggered attacks, the 1st, 2nd, and so on, so the attacker could then 5' step and continue the attack sequence as per normal, or free action quickdraw and continue the attack sequence as per normal.

And on this everyone has already agreed, it is the "counter" to this tactic. move in close to him without attacking. Then use your first attack to provoke his readied action. Then take the 5ft step and finish the rest of your attack against him.

Er, no, I don't think Komoda agrees with this at all. The fact that you think he agrees with this makes me think that it's you who isn't understand what he is saying.

Furthermore, just to clarify, none of your attacks are 'lost' if they trigger the action, as the interrupt occurs before you roll the die. If the 1st attack triggers the readied action, you can still 5' step and get your full round of attacks on the defender.

Fine I should have said a lot of people who've posted on this. I didn't say "everyone" thinking of the ramifications that it included Komoda in it. I haven't gone to evaluate if Komoda is there or not. But if he is then it shows that you are misunderstanding what Komoda is saying. But when I said everyone agrees I still was saying that you lost the first attack. Looking back I can see how that could have been not clear.

Also my post about understanding is that I feel you are arguing with Komoda about things he's not saying. Or your not staying on the same topic as him. Maybe it intentional. But my post was suggesting that we make sure to define the terms used before claiming the other is "dumb for not understanding" (Not saying that this has happened at all. Using it as an example). Because there is mutual misunderstanding. Like if you truly thought a full attack had multiple attack actions, and he didn't. That means when talking about the full attack you're actually talking about different things. Thus leading to things not making sense.

And again, we differ on the question Komada is FAQing. Which is what is interrupted. I say you've lost the attack because you committed your target and that attack is no longer valid and is lost as per quoted in the rules. That you're locked in to attacking me, and that is the trigger, and my actions happen before it is resolved/happens, but that you can't change your mind on what you're doing.


Also if the attack is the roll then the readied action triggers while the dice is rolling but before it's settled. And since you're out of reach the result of the roll doesn't matter and the attack is lost/you missed me.


For the most part, I have made no claim as to the result. I am more interested in HOW to get to the result. That, I think, is a distinct difference. I plan to apply the HOW to other debates that work the same way. At my table, this kiting tactic is outlawed, but that may not be RAW and the ruling at my table is not based on it.

My point is that the logic of the interruption is greatly in debate on these forums. I have seen people swing both sides, not based on the HOW but on the outcome. The outcome doesn't change the HOW, the HOW changes the outcome.

So, when presented with the interruption debate in a completely different form than the trip-lock or loss action because of tripped debate, I went for it. This happened because BBT asked the question that showed me people will take the same logic question, that must be solved in the same manner, and come to a different answer because the variables have changed.

Turns out, Ozy and I are so far off on things like when a 5' step is legal or if a die roll and attack are two different things rather than a physical and mental manifestation of the same thing, that the debate has devolved so far that I can't figure out how to bring it back to the interruption part of the debate.


And personally, my feeling is that Komoda and Ozy aren't that far off on what they actually believe, but because of communication problems they can't see that they are saying some of the same things. And personally on this I feel that Ozy is more at fault than Komoda. Personally I get the impression that Ozy is defensive, or angry, while I feel Komoda is just trying to get a base to start the discussion on.


While I appreciate the vote of confidence, there is no reason to beat him up.


I'm sorry it came across that way and I'm very sorry to Ozy if any of it felt like a personal attack or anything of the like. I'm not trying to beat him up. My intent is to share how he's coming across and what I feel the problem is in hopes to help clarify the communication. I don't think he's doing anything wrong in how he's posting or what he's doing.

Because I too am curious if he really has a third option from the two you presented earlier and am interested to see where it goes.

But for me I know I would like someone to do this if I were him. Often I can get caught up in things, or not realize where the communication problem could be. So I thought I'd share. Perhaps I'm an odd case and such action isn't desired by others. In which case I'd like to know to avoid future mistakes and I again apologize to Ozy.


Again folks, to FAQ this go to LINK

Lets be polite. :)


Chess Pwn wrote:
Also if the attack is the roll then the readied action triggers while the dice is rolling but before it's settled. And since you're out of reach the result of the roll doesn't matter and the attack is lost/you missed me.

This can't happen. You can't ready an action to trigger on a die roll. You can ready an action to trigger on an attack, which takes place before the die is rolled.

Seriously, do you allow someone to ready an action to move while a fireball is in flight? That's the equivalent to what you are suggesting.


Sorry Gauss and Komoda I made a mistake. Ozy, all references to "Komoda's FAQ questions" should actually be "Gauss' FAQ question"


Komoda wrote:

For the most part, I have made no claim as to the result. I am more interested in HOW to get to the result. That, I think, is a distinct difference. I plan to apply the HOW to other debates that work the same way. At my table, this kiting tactic is outlawed, but that may not be RAW and the ruling at my table is not based on it.

My point is that the logic of the interruption is greatly in debate on these forums. I have seen people swing both sides, not based on the HOW but on the outcome. The outcome doesn't change the HOW, the HOW changes the outcome.

So, when presented with the interruption debate in a completely different form than the trip-lock or loss action because of tripped debate, I went for it. This happened because BBT asked the question that showed me people will take the same logic question, that must be solved in the same manner, and come to a different answer because the variables have changed.

Turns out, Ozy and I are so far off on things like when a 5' step is legal or if a die roll and attack are two different things rather than a physical and mental manifestation of the same thing, that the debate has devolved so far that I can't figure out how to bring it back to the interruption part of the debate.

It's quite simple, this is how you get the result:

"A readied action interrupts an action that has started. The readied action is resolved first, and then the action that has already started can continue."

That's all that is needed to adjudicate the issue, everything else just uses standard RAW rules regarding 5' steps, free actions, movement, and so on.

Can you come up with a readying rule that is as succinct and self-consistent as what I just posted between the quotes?


_Ozy_ wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Also if the attack is the roll then the readied action triggers while the dice is rolling but before it's settled. And since you're out of reach the result of the roll doesn't matter and the attack is lost/you missed me.

This can't happen. You can't ready an action to trigger on a die roll. You can ready an action to trigger on an attack, which takes place before the die is rolled.

Seriously, do you allow someone to ready an action to move while a fireball is in flight? That's the equivalent to what you are suggesting.

Yes, I personally would allow that. If someone readied an action to move when a spell was cast/when a fireball came at them/something else like this. And then they moved out of the range of the fireball, then the fireball would miss them. To me that is what the rules allow.

He're what I feel is happening:
I ready an action and specify the trigger.
The trigger happens.
I get my readied action before the triggered action resolves/happens.
The trigger action finishes and can't be changed at all.

This is why I feel having a good trigger condition is where the real power of readied actions come in.


Chess Pwn wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Also if the attack is the roll then the readied action triggers while the dice is rolling but before it's settled. And since you're out of reach the result of the roll doesn't matter and the attack is lost/you missed me.

This can't happen. You can't ready an action to trigger on a die roll. You can ready an action to trigger on an attack, which takes place before the die is rolled.

Seriously, do you allow someone to ready an action to move while a fireball is in flight? That's the equivalent to what you are suggesting.

Yes, I personally would allow that. If someone readied an action to move when a spell was cast/when a fireball came at them/something else like this. And then they moved out of the range of the fireball, then the fireball would miss them. To me that is what the rules allow.

He're what I feel is happening:
I ready an action and specify the trigger.
The trigger happens.
I get my readied action before the triggered action resolves/happens.
The trigger action finishes and can't be changed at all.

This is why I feel having a good trigger condition is where the real power of readied actions come in.

I have never, ever seen anyone suggest that you can ready an action to interrupt something that is essentially instantaneous like this.

If you truly believe this, then I think you are further away from my understanding than even Komoda. Furthermore, this is even more game-breaking as it can make you essentially immune to many spells as long as you have a high enough base speed.


_Ozy_ wrote:

"A readied action interrupts an action that has started. The readied action is resolved first, and then the action that has already started can continue."

That's all that is needed to adjudicate the issue, everything else just uses standard RAW rules regarding 5' steps, free actions, movement, and so on.

Can you come up with a readying rule that is as succinct and self-consistent as what I just posted between the quotes?

I know I'm not Komoda, so I'm not speaking for him. But what I feel happens is exactly what you say. BUT that actually means to the both of us is different.

I say a readied action for when you attack me.
You start your attack action, and then start swinging at me.
This now triggers my readied action and I move.
Now your swing of your attack action can continue but fails because I'm out of reach now.

Thus using my view of it, you can't 5ft step as you're already making the swing, you could 5ft step once you've finish your failed swing and take the rest of your full attacks if you were doing a full attack.

And I feel this is where there has been misunderstanding.


That's not a misunderstanding. I understand exactly what you are saying, and I am saying that you are doing it wrong.

An action that has 'started' is just that, started. It hasn't yet made any die rolls, no movement, no 5' steps. The action has just started and been immediately interrupted.

I haven't rolled my attack on you, that attack hasn't been lost. You take your readied action, and I now have my complete standard attack action to use as I see fit.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Also if the attack is the roll then the readied action triggers while the dice is rolling but before it's settled. And since you're out of reach the result of the roll doesn't matter and the attack is lost/you missed me.

This can't happen. You can't ready an action to trigger on a die roll. You can ready an action to trigger on an attack, which takes place before the die is rolled.

Seriously, do you allow someone to ready an action to move while a fireball is in flight? That's the equivalent to what you are suggesting.

Yes, I personally would allow that. If someone readied an action to move when a spell was cast/when a fireball came at them/something else like this. And then they moved out of the range of the fireball, then the fireball would miss them. To me that is what the rules allow.

He're what I feel is happening:
I ready an action and specify the trigger.
The trigger happens.
I get my readied action before the triggered action resolves/happens.
The trigger action finishes and can't be changed at all.

This is why I feel having a good trigger condition is where the real power of readied actions come in.

I have never, ever seen anyone suggest that you can ready an action to interrupt something that is essentially instantaneous like this.

If you truly believe this, then I think you are further away from my understanding than even Komoda. Furthermore, this is even more game-breaking as it can make you essentially immune to many spells as long as you have a high enough base speed.

I truly believe this. And I've never said I agreed with your view. And personally it's not game-breaking for me as I feel it is rules legal, and I don't bother with the in game effects. I stopped caring about "realistic" when old crane wing monk could negate a Gargantuan Dragon's bite attack. So anything that "doesn't make sense in the game world" doesn't bother or phase me at all. I say congrats on finding this neat rules trick.

And I feel that a readied action should be one of the most powerful things because it could also be a wasted action. I feel it makes it a good trade for potential HIGH power for a chance of NO power

EDIT: ALSO to point out, I'm pretty sure this whole thread, and anyone that says it works is "suggest(ing) that you can ready an action to interrupt something that is essentially instantaneous like this."


_Ozy_ wrote:

That's not a misunderstanding. I understand exactly what you are saying, and I am saying that you are doing it wrong.

An action that has 'started' is just that, started. It hasn't yet made any die rolls, no movement, no 5' steps. The action has just started and been immediately interrupted.

I haven't rolled my attack on you, that attack hasn't been lost. You take your readied action, and I now have my complete standard attack action to use as I see fit.

NO the misunderstanding I was saying is that "A readied action interrupts an action that has started. The readied action is resolved first, and then the action that has already started can continue." To this we'll both say Yes. But then our definition of what can be interrupted/when it is interrupted is different. And I'm fine and understand you feel you are right and I am wrong. I agree we have a difference on this. But clarifying WHAT we are differing over is important to actually discuss it.

I and perhaps Komoda, are operating that a readied action can interrupt the actual attack or in your words, the actual swing of the attack action attack. Thus the action has started, and moved into some decision and action, like the start of a swing, before getting interrupted.

See this was a difference of the meaning of started. Because to me interrupting at the end of it would also be interrupting after the action has started. While it seems you meant that it's the first thing that happens of the action when you said started.

EDITED


Quote:
EDIT: ALSO to point out, I'm pretty sure this whole thread, and anyone that says it works is "suggest(ing) that you can ready an action to interrupt something that is essentially instantaneous like this."

Nope.


Komoda wrote:
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.

They both work the same, this is how they work.

5' kite (if no movement was made before)
(Start, standard attack/full-attack action)->(readied action is triggered and is fully executed, the readier is now 2 spaces away, no attack resource has been spent, attack action has been committed to)(0 or more things from the options list happen)(end attack/full-attack action)
Options*
A. make an attack on a legal target
B. 5' step
C. Quick draw a ranged or reach weapon

5' kite (if movement was made before)
(Start, standard attack action)->(readied action is triggered and is fully executed, the readier is now 2 spaces away, no attack resource has been spent, attack action has been committed to)(0 or more things from the options list happen)(end attack action)
Options*
A. make an attack on a legal target
B. Quick draw a ranged or reach weapon

Trip AoO
(Start move equivalent action "move")->(AoO is triggered, mover is now made prone by a successful trip attempt)(0 or more things from the options list happen)(end move equivalent action "move")
Options*
A. continue move using a legal move speed(possibly crawl)
B. use an ability to stand up from prone as a free/swift action

In both cases the offending action is ended and "lost" if non of the legal option in the options lists are taken, in ether case the action can not be changed to a different action, the action economy has been spent. It's no different than if the AoO or readied action had happened after the second attack of a full-attack or the first 5' of a move "move" action.


_Ozy_ wrote:
Quote:
EDIT: ALSO to point out, I'm pretty sure this whole thread, and anyone that says it works is "suggest(ing) that you can ready an action to interrupt something that is essentially instantaneous like this."
Nope.

Care to elaborate on that?

Sjark wrote:
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?
chaoseffect wrote:
I really think that would depend on what the trigger for the readied action was. For instance, if it was something like "an enemy gets close enough to attack me," sure, the monster could just continue to move. But what if it was "a monster tries to attack me?" In that situation the monster would have already completed a move and then initiated a standard action.
claudekennilol wrote:
If the trigger is "when I get attacked, I move back 5'" then you're altering the state of the trigger after the effect has gone off. If you didn't attack, then I didn't move. But then if you do attack, I do move, which makes it so you keep moving and not attacking so I didn't move.
claudekennilol wrote:
It seems to me you started swinging and I darted back 5' as you sliced through the air.
Hazrond wrote:

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

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

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

And this is only from the second post of the second page. So there are definitely people who feel that you could interrupt the swing of the attack to avoid the attack and cause it to fail.


_Ozy_ wrote:

That's not a misunderstanding. I understand exactly what you are saying, and I am saying that you are doing it wrong.

An action that has 'started' is just that, started. It hasn't yet made any die rolls, no movement, no 5' steps. The action has just started and been immediately interrupted.

I haven't rolled my attack on you, that attack hasn't been lost. You take your readied action, and I now have my complete standard attack action to use as I see fit.

This is where we diverge and I believe your logic is inconsistent, not that we just have a different opinion of how the rules work. If you believe this, then when someone STARTS moving, they haven't moved. Since they haven't moved, they can do something else.

I feel you are trying to have it both ways.

I feel the 5' Step rule is very important to this discussion because you can't do it after you Started attacking but before you finished. You can only use it before the attack starts or after the attack is complete.

To parse your claim with Attack vs. Trip:

Kiting Scenario: (I removed your bolds and bolded the differences between the two) wrote:

An action that has 'started' is just that, started. It hasn't yet made any die rolls, no movement, no 5' steps. The action has just started and been immediately interrupted.

I haven't rolled my attack on you, that attack hasn't been lost. You take your readied action, and I now have my complete standard attack action to use as I see fit.

Trip Scenario: wrote:

An action that has 'started' is just that, started. It hasn't yet made any die rolls, no movement, no 5' steps. The action has just started and been immediately interrupted.

I haven't moved on you, that move hasn't been lost. You take your readied action, and I now have my complete move action to use as I see fit.

---

My only changes are to the type of action from attack to move. Nothing esle. Yet if I understand correctly, you claim that the tripped person cannot take a different move action, but the attacker can take a different attack action.

The two cannot be resolved. And THAT is my entire point. Not which version is correct, that is in the other thread. Only that the rule of interrupts MUST apply to both in the same exact manner.


NikolaiJuno wrote:
Komoda wrote:
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.

They both work the same, this is how they work.

5' kite (if no movement was made before)
(Start, standard attack/full-attack action)->(readied action is triggered and is fully executed, the readier is now 2 spaces away, no attack resource has been spent, attack action has been committed to)(0 or more things from the options list happen)(end attack/full-attack action)
Options*
A. make an attack on a legal target
B. 5' step
C. Quick draw a ranged or reach weapon

5' kite (if movement was made before)
(Start, standard attack action)->(readied action is triggered and is fully executed, the readier is now 2 spaces away, no attack resource has been spent, attack action has been committed to)(0 or more things from the options list happen)(end attack action)
Options*
A. make an attack on a legal target
B. Quick draw a ranged or reach weapon

Trip AoO
(Start move equivalent action "move")->(AoO is triggered, mover is now made prone by a successful trip attempt)(0 or more things from the options list happen)(end move equivalent action "move")
Options*
A. continue move using a legal move speed(possibly crawl)
B. use an ability to stand up from prone as a free/swift action

In both cases the offending action is ended and "lost" if non of the legal option in the options lists are taken, in ether case the action can not be changed to a different action, the action economy has been spent. It's no different than if the AoO or readied action had happened after the second attack of a full-attack or the first 5' of a move "move" action.

This is how you feel it works. Unless you have some official source clarifying this though it's your interpretation. I feel the rules say otherwise. I feel that you can lose actions based on readied actions and AoO


Komoda wrote:

My only changes are to the type of action from attack to move. Nothing esle. Yet if I understand correctly, you claim that the tripped person cannot take a different move action, but the attacker can take a different attack action.

The two cannot be resolved. And THAT is my entire point. Not which version is correct, that is in the other thread. Only that the rule of interrupts MUST apply to both in the same exact manner.

No, that is not my claim at all. I claim just the opposite.

The tripped person can finish his movement move action with any legal movement, or free/swift action options. He can crawl, he can fly, he can swift/free action stand if he has the ability and continue his regular base move.

The attacking person can finish his attack standard action with any legal actions as well, 5' step, free action quickdraw, attack any legal target, etc...

I don't get why you keep insisting I'm saying the opposite of what I'm saying. Both scenarios are identical and consistent. An action is started, interrupted, and then continued with any legal activity that is allowed during the original selected action.


Chess Pwn wrote:
This is how you feel it works. Unless you have some official source clarifying this though it's your interpretation. I feel the rules say otherwise. I feel that you can lose actions based on readied actions and AoO

So are you saying that if I ready an action to move into a square that another character is trying to move into(or for that matter use Combat Patrol to do it easier) that he loses his move action or just 5' of it?


That is not what you posted. You posted that you could take any standard attack action, not finish the action you started. They are not the same thing. That is why we cannot agree on anything. You even said you could quick draw a different weapon and use it.

Your logic does not match. You specifically had to change the types of actions and parsing of your sentences to make them not equal.

By changing weapons or taking the 5' step you are specifically NOT finishing the same action you are starting. You are specifically putting two other actions in between the start of the attack and the end of the attack.


NikolaiJuno wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
This is how you feel it works. Unless you have some official source clarifying this though it's your interpretation. I feel the rules say otherwise. I feel that you can lose actions based on readied actions and AoO
So are you saying that if I ready an action to move into a square that another character is trying to move into(or for that matter use Combat Patrol to do it easier) that he loses his move action or just 5' of it?

Excellent question!

I would like to add: If I start a charge and am tripped in the first square, what actions are available to me?

201 to 250 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.