Kiting with 5' Steps???

[Chess Pwn]

_Ozy_ wrote:

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.

It's because that's how he's understanding what you're saying. So somewhere in what you mean -> what you write -> how he understands what you wrote is getting an error. And then he puts back what he understood to you to see if he got it correctly. Now you clarify that that wasn't your meaning. So now you can work getting him the correct understanding of what you're saying. (You might have done it in this post, don't know I'm not him.) And then you can discuss the stuff that actually matters :D

[_Ozy_]

Komoda wrote:

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.

I claimed absolutely no such thing. I claimed that you had to continue your standard action attack action.

And as part of that action you are allowed to: 5' step, quickdraw a reach weapon and attack, quickdraw a dagger and throw, quickdraw a bow and shoot.

All of these are legal options during a standard attack action. Nowhere did I suggest you could change your standard attack action to another type action, in fact I insisted since the beginning that you couldn't.

By changing weapons you are still making an attack action.

By crawling instead of using your base land movement, you are still making a movement move action.

You seem to think that there is some special pathfinder defined 'Attack person with sword' action that can't be changed into a 'throw dagger at person' action. You are wrong. Until you roll the die, you can perform any legal action during a standard attack action in response to a readied attack, including a 5' step, quickdraw, etc...

What you can't do is change that attack action into a move action or other standard action since you've already started the standard attack action.

[_Ozy_]

Chess Pwn wrote:

_Ozy_ wrote:

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.

It's because that's how he's understanding what you're saying. So somewhere in what you mean -> what you write -> how he understands what you wrote is getting an error. And then he puts back what he understood to you to see if he got it correctly. Now you clarify that that wasn't your meaning. So now you can work getting him the correct understanding of what you're saying. (You might have done it in this post, don't know I'm not him.) And then you can discuss the stuff that actually matters :D

Dude, again not helpful.

[Komoda]

OZY wrote:

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.

The above, even if it is not what you meant it to mean, clearly means you can use your "standard attack action to use as (you) see fit."

There is no way on earth I misunderstood that sentence.

And if you can use your standard attack action as you see fit, you can use your move action as you see fit.

If you did not mean that you can use your standard attack action as you see fit, then that is OK. But you did say that you can use your standard attack action as you see fit. I didn't make it up.

[Chess Pwn]

_Ozy_ wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

_Ozy_ wrote:

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.

It's because that's how he's understanding what you're saying. So somewhere in what you mean -> what you write -> how he understands what you wrote is getting an error. And then he puts back what he understood to you to see if he got it correctly. Now you clarify that that wasn't your meaning. So now you can work getting him the correct understanding of what you're saying. (You might have done it in this post, don't know I'm not him.) And then you can discuss the stuff that actually matters :D

Dude, again not helpful.

It's only as unhelpful as you make it. I feel Komoda isn't trying to twist your words. And I feel you've done much better and being clear on what you mean. But you still sound angry/defensive to me. Komoda IS trying to understand your view to discuss if there's differences between you two.

But I will now stop such advice to you as you have now asked me not to.

[Komoda]

Your standard attack action was started as an attack on the person that is no longer there. You cannot stop, draw a longspear, and finish your attack that you started. Even if you have Quickdraw.

You can END the standard attack action, draw a longspear, and then do a move action if you like, but your attack action is spent.

So, if I understand you now, you feel it is OK to stop the attack action and do other things before you finish that individual attack action?

[NikolaiJuno]

Komoda wrote:

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?

Spend 1 panache to Kip-Up as a swift action, and continue the charge.

Continue the charge using a crawl(or burrow?) speed.
End the action, and most likely your turn.

[Chess Pwn]

Komoda wrote:

Your standard attack action was started as an attack on the person that is no longer there. You cannot stop, draw a longspear, and finish your attack that you started. Even if you have Quickdraw.

You can END the standard attack action, draw a longspear, and then do a move action if you like, but your attack action is spent.

So, if I understand you now, you feel it is OK to stop the attack action and do other things before you finish that individual attack action?

I think what he's saying that this is the flow of things

1)Enemy declares that his standard action will be attack action but not specified the weapon or target.
2)Your readied action triggers (I'm not sure exactly why yet)
3)enemy now does his attack action attack which included picking the weapon and the target.

Or maybe the target has been declared as you, triggering your readied action, but the weapon to be used isn't set yet.

[NikolaiJuno]

Komoda wrote:

OZY wrote:

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.

The above, even if it is not what you meant it to mean, clearly means you can use your "standard attack action to use as (you) see fit."

I' pretty sure what he means is you can continue your [attack action] in any legal way that an attack action can legally be performed, but you can not perform any [standard action] you want in it's place. That is how I believe it works.

When you start an action you don't define every little detail of how that action happens, you start it then when you hit each decision point of using the action you decide what you do at that point. Most of the time everything happens all at once in real play, but sometimes other things get in the way, so you need to slow down the game and do everything bit by bit.

[Chess Pwn]

NikolaiJuno wrote:

When you start an action you don't define every little detail of how that action happens, you start it then when you hit each decision point of using the action you decide what you do at that point. Most of the time everything happens all at once in real play, but sometimes other things get in the way, so you need to slow down the game and do everything bit by bit.

So I'm just asking to clarify your view. Don't be provoked by this.

At which point are you committed to attacking me?
which decisions have been made once you are committed to attacking me?
At which point have you started attacking me?
Which decisions have been made once you've started to attack me?

EDIT: Would you say there's any point where it's to late to change your decision and thus me doing something to invalidate that choice would result in you "losing/wasting" that attack action?

These don't need separate answers, but I would like them to be addressed.

[NikolaiJuno]

Chess Pwn wrote:

At which point are you committed to attacking me?

which decisions have been made once you are committed to attacking me?
At which point have you started attacking me?
Which decisions have been made once you've started to attack me?

At this point I kind of have to bring up a point that does rather prove that an attack "sub-action", as I'm choosing to call it, can be reacted to after it has been declared, but before the role has been made. Firing a bow provokes an AoO. After that you kind of have to make that bow attack or lose that attack "sub-action".

Chess Pwn wrote:

At which point are you committed to attacking me?

once you are declared as the target of the attack "sub-action".

Chess Pwn wrote:

which decisions have been made once you are committed to attacking me?

Starting whatever type of action the attack "sub-action" is being made as a part of, declaring you as the target, possibly the weapon of choice(the necessity of this is fuzzy)

Chess Pwn wrote:

At which point have you started attacking me?

This rather varies depending on definition.

Chess Pwn wrote:

Which decisions have been made once you've started to attack me?

Also varies depending on definition.

If you consider started to attack you as different from committing to attacking the it would have to be defined as the attack roll, In that case the decisions have been Start action(possibly Standard attack action), declare you as the target, declare weapon to be used. At this point the attack should not be able to be interrupted by any action until both attack and damage has been rolled.

[Komoda]

NikolaiJuno,

If you believe...

"At this point I kind of have to bring up a point that does rather prove that an attack "sub-action", as I'm choosing to call it, can be reacted to after it has been declared, but before the role has been made. Firing a bow provokes an AoO. After that you kind of have to make that bow attack or lose that attack "sub-action".

...then you must believe that the Kiting DOES work, correct?

[Chess Pwn]

NikolaiJuno wrote:

If you consider started to attack you as different from committing to attacking the it would have to be defined as the attack roll, In that case the decisions have been Start action(possibly Standard attack action), declare you as the target, declare weapon to be used. At this point the attack should not be able to be interrupted by any action until both attack and damage has been rolled.

The time my readied action goes off is right before you roll, but after you've made all those decision you're about to roll for. So you've "started" to attack me with a sword then my readied action goes of to allow me to move. Now you lost your actions as you can no longer finish attacking me with your sword.

This is what I propose is possible. Do you agree? If not why? which part of my example doesn't work right according to you?

[NikolaiJuno]

The thing is if you have Snap Shot but not Point Blank Master and you fire your bow which provokes an AoO from the guy next to you, he then decides to make a disarm attempt without Improved Disarm which provokes an AoO from you. Can you use Snap Shot to make an AoO against him despite the fact that you are currently committed to an attack with that weapon already?

[Komoda]

NikolaiJuno wrote:

The thing is if you have Snap Shot but not Point Blank Master and you fire your bow which provokes an AoO from the guy next to you, he then decides to make a disarm attempt without Improved Disarm which provokes an AoO from you. Can you use Snap Shot to make an AoO against him despite the fact that you are currently committed to an attack with that weapon already?

AoO's stack. We know this to be true. First in, last out.

Fire bow and provoke
Disarm and provoke
Fire bow at disarmer
Disarm happens
If still have bow, fire bow.

The above is not debated. The question we (as in me) are asking is, if you still have your bow after the disarm attempt, can you now drop it, Quickdraw a dagger and hit with that?

Or even better, if you bow is disarmed, can you now Quickdraw that dagger and attack?

[NikolaiJuno]

But my point is if you fire your bow in the middle of firing your bow how are you able to, and why are you required to finish firing your bow? It would logically have to be entirely reset for firing. Why couldn't you draw a dagger and attack with it instead? It would take the same physical effort to do as to return to firing the bow again.

[Komoda]

You are able to because the rule for stacking AoO's states how you can do it.

To be clear, I don't care what your position is, I am just trying to lock down one position. No matter what, once you answer, my next question will be worded to see if you treat the interrupt process the same exact way when applied to being tripped during an AoO.

Please don't take my questions to be leading you one way or the other, I am just trying to nail down one part at a time.

[Komoda]

Although, you do show that even following what we all agree to be the "normal" rules for AoO stacking, you have shown that the original arrow that started the chain is completely gone by the time you get back to the original attack.

Interesting...

Did rocks fall and kill everyone?

[NikolaiJuno]

I'm actually trying to figure out exactly how I believe it to work at that level as well. I'm starting to think it only makes sense if you don't consume the attacks limit resource, but then it would seem you would have to restart the initial bow attack, but that would have to provoke another AoO.

[Komoda]

HA, and what happens if you run out of arrows?! Now what?

Attack with bow - provokes
AoO trip attempt - provokes
AoO attack with bow - uses last arrow
Trip fails
Attack with bow, but no arrow!

Rocks Fall! Game over.

[Komoda]

I think you have actually proven that at some point the interrupt breaks the space-time continuum for both arguments. I absolutely thank you for that. It invalidates the space-time continuum argument as both sides can use it.

If you believe the interrupt action happens before the triggering action, the triggering action may have never taken place, which breaks the space-time continuum because then how does the interrupt action every happen? (This is how I play)

If you believe the interrupt action happens after the triggering action starts but before the triggering action ends, the space-time continuum can still be broken, as evidenced by the "last arrow" scenario. (This is how many people play)

Source Material that got me to my position. (Gauss adamantly thinks I am incorrect, and he may be right.)

[NikolaiJuno]

I guess you just have to go with something and just fudge it if it tries to break on you.

[Chess Pwn]

Success! Not that anybody's view has changed. But Clarity and understanding has been reached! And That's all I go for. Changing of views is just a plus if it happens

[NikolaiJuno]

I'm glad my decision to ignore this thread a while back didn't stick.

[Byakko]

Komoda, wasn't the other 10 page thread enough to convey how readied actions work (as most people understand them)? I know you believe they work differently, but why rehash that really long thread again here?

Again, as soon as you declare and begin an action, you have committed that action to whatever it may be. When you get to the point where you resolve that action, and it's no longer possible to perform, you don't magically get to change that action to something else. The action is wasted.

So no, you can't quick draw a different weapon when you're disarmed and attack with it instead. Nor is the space time continuum broken. You began attempting the action, something just stopped you from completing it.

As for ready wordings that mess with the system:

"When that orc move adjacent to me, I trip him then 5' step away." (if you can reliably trip, that melee orc now has no way to attack you, unless he wants to crawl)

"When the orc finishes his move adjacent to me, I attack him and 5' step away." (his movement is done, so he won't be able to hit you without some sort of reach)

"As soon as that orc starts charging me, I move adjacent to him" (the minimum distance condition for a successful charge is not met, thus invalidating it)

[Komoda]

Byakko, it looks like you didn't read all of the posts, and I clearly cannot blame you.

Here it was about kiting and if kiting is possible. A whole lot of people seemed to think it simply does not work.

If the interrupt from the AoO that results in a trip stops the move action, as most people claim in the other thread, then the interrupt from the readied 5' step ALSO stops the attack and Kiting is a valid mechanic.

That exact sentence above is why this thread got so long. I was not trying to prove either side.

that if:

trip AoO = no move action,

then

5' kiting = no attack action.

Or reversed, if people felt that way:

If 5' kiting does not interrupt the attack

then

the trip AoO does not interrupt the move action

Again, people in this thread stated kiting was not valid because there is no interrupt, while in the other thread state moving is not valid because there is an interrupt. It can't be both ways.

Then Ozy and I could not get together on when you could 5' step or draw a weapon and that was almost 100 posts right there.

Again, my actions in this thread were not to place a claim on validity of Kiting or the action of interruptions, it was to compare the kiting interruption to the tripping interruption and show that the interruption must work the same way in both scenarios.

My actions here were not at all about the outcome, but about forcing people to decide exactly, step-by-step, how they got the outcome and apply it to both sides.

[Byakko]

Ah, my apologies then. I did indeed write that when I was tired and hadn't fully read every post.

Yeah, kiting with 5' steps is doable as you point out. If you 5' step as part of a ready (if the ready is worded correctly) it can cause an attack to "whiff". Nor can they redirect the attack to another valid target nearby.

I still consider many of these 5' step shenanigans "Dark Side" tactics, which while legal, should not be used as they break the intent of how combat is supposed to flow. Even if you only stall for a round or two, that's typically how long it takes to determine who's won a fight, so has a huge impact.

[NikolaiJuno]

I believe that an attack(not the action but the attack itself) may be a resource that is not spent until the attack roll is made in a similar way as to how 5' of movement is not spent until you move that distance.
Although that creates about as many problems as it solves.

[DarkPhoenixx]

Quote:

Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action, otherwise the action is lost without effect.

Quote:

Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action, otherwise he must choose another action to perform.

Both seems reasonable to me.

[Komoda]

Byakko wrote:

Ah, my apologies then. I did indeed write that when I was tired and hadn't fully read every post.

Yeah, kiting with 5' steps is doable as you point out. If you 5' step as part of a ready (if the ready is worded correctly) it can cause an attack to "whiff". Nor can they redirect the attack to another valid target nearby.

I still consider many of these 5' step shenanigans "Dark Side" tactics, which while legal, should not be used as they break the intent of how combat is supposed to flow. Even if you only stall for a round or two, that's typically how long it takes to determine who's won a fight, so has a huge impact.

Apology accepted. It is difficult to enter into the middle of a thread like this.

[Kletus Bob]

bbangerter wrote:

Despite 18 years as a software engineer, I have no idea what this 'code' is trying to do or what you are trying to say. Nor do I understand what you are trying to point out by your TL/DR section.

Please repost with either a more clear code sample, or written in english rather than pseudo code.

What is so hard to understand? You can specify when a ready action happens. Thus it is before or after an opponent action, not while something is resolved. You don’t get to interrupt an ongoing action. Even an immediate action does not allow that and most of the time have a WHEN it can happen.

Also, do please write a better pseudo code, instead of one liner comments, as I hardly believe you got 18 years under your belt if you cannot see the difference between a WHEN and a WHILE.

[bbangerter]

Kletus Bob wrote:

bbangerter wrote:

Despite 18 years as a software engineer, I have no idea what this 'code' is trying to do or what you are trying to say. Nor do I understand what you are trying to point out by your TL/DR section.

Please repost with either a more clear code sample, or written in english rather than pseudo code.

What is so hard to understand? You can specify when a ready action happens. Thus it is before or after an opponent action, not while something is resolved. You don’t get to interrupt an ongoing action. Even an immediate action does not allow that and most of the time have a WHEN it can happen.

Also, do please write a better pseudo code, instead of one liner comments, as I hardly believe you got 18 years under your belt if you cannot see the difference between a WHEN and a WHILE.

So I tell you you are not communicating your idea effectively, and your response is to call me a liar? While amusing, it's still not effective in explaining what you are trying to say.

I get how readied actions work. What I don't know, based on your previous post, is what you are trying to explain with them.

Quote:

...difference between a WHEN and a WHILE

Good pseudo code would actually write those out. Your snippet leaves the reader trying to infer what is what and where.