The Overwatch feats from the Melee Master's Handbook allow you to ready more actions than normal.
My fellow players seem to be under the impression that the below list of scenarios are all legal uses of these feats. Does the feats' wording prohibit any of the following?
1) Ready as many as four attacks against a single target for the same triggering action.
2) Ready as many as four attacks against multiple targets for the same triggering action.
3) Ready as many as four attacks against a single target for different triggering actions.
4) Ready as many as four attacks against multiple targets for different triggering actions.
Based on the wording of the Overwatch feats, which of these would be allowed? All of them? My players argue that the text in the feats isn't technically exclusionary, but I wanted to double check.
Overwatch Vortex (Combat)
Prerequisite(s): Overwatch Style, Overwatch Tactician, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus with the chosen weapon, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit(s): While using the Overwatch Style, as a full-round action you can ready up to four ranged attacks, each with its own triggering event. You take a –2 penalty on attack rolls made with these readied actions.
1) no, one character can prepare one attack against him since there is only one triggering event
2) yes, there are 4 different events so you can prepare 1 attack for each event
3) yes, if the target actually makes four actions and your player correctly predicts all of them he can prepare 1 attack for each event
4) yes, if they successfully predict 4 actions the number of targets shouldn't matter
EDIT: misread number 2
If each readied action attack has "if he casts a spell" as the triggering event, do they each not have their own triggering event?
As my players argued to me, it doesn't read as exclusionary at all.
As an analogy, if my mother states that my brothers and I can each have a fruit, and we all grab apples, we have not violated our mother's statement in the slightest.
If each readied action attack has "if he casts a spell" as the triggering event, do they each not have their own triggering event?
As my players argued to me, it doesn't read as exclusionary at all.
As an analogy, if my mother states that my brothers and I can each have a fruit, and we all grab apples, we have not violated our mother's statement in the slightest.
Overwatch Vortex (Combat)
Prerequisite(s): Overwatch Style, Overwatch Tactician, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus with the chosen weapon, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit(s): While using the Overwatch Style, as a full-round action you can ready up to four ranged attacks, each with its own triggering event. You take a –2 penalty on attack rolls made with these readied actions.
each readied action must have its own triggering event-> your brothers can all have their own apple, but if all 4 of you try to take one (indivisible) apple its not gonna go so well
I doubt that example of yours is going to be enough to convince my players, and they're already aware of the highlighted text and clearly hold a differing view on its meaning, so pointing it out over and over isn't likely to help.
(To be clear, my goal isn't to prove that my players are wrong, my goal is to determine the RAI and the RAW of the feats.)
I doubt that example of yours is going to be enough to convince my players, and they're already aware of the highlighted text and clearly hold a differing view on its meaning, so pointing it out over and over isn't likely to help.
(To be clear, my goal isn't to prove that my players are wrong, my goal is to determine the RAI and the RAW of the feats.)
well, can't really argue with blind stubborn, "its own" is about as exclusionary as it gets in normal english
EDIT: this situation with the brothers translates to:
A = apple
B = brother
(B1 ∧ A1 ) ∧ ( B2 ∧ ¬A1) ∧ (B3 ∧ ¬A1 ) ∧ (B4 ∧ ¬A1) in semi-formal logic
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1 is a yes. Each has it's own trigger action, just happens to be the same action. Nothing says they can't be the same action. It's like having 4 runners at a race and the gun going off, all four are going to start.
"BUT If that doesn't work" set the first to be when he casts a spell or whatever, then the second one to be "I shoot the wizard when I have taken a shot at the wizard" third being when I have shot twice, and fourth being when I have shot three times. thus ensuring that they all get to go off at the wizard when the trigger action occurs.
1 is a yes. Each has it's own trigger action, just happens to be the same action. Nothing says they can't be the same action. It's like having 4 runners at a race and the gun going off, all four are going to start.
"BUT If that doesn't work" set the first to be when he casts a spell or whatever, then the second one to be "I shoot the wizard when I have taken a shot at the wizard" third being when I have shot twice, and fourth being when I have shot three times. thus ensuring that they all get to go off at the wizard when the trigger action occurs.
no... situation one is like 1 runner trying to start the race 4 times, not 4 runners all starting at the same time
no... situation one is like 1 runner trying to start the race 4 times, not 4 runners all starting at the same time1 is a yes. Each has it's own trigger action, just happens to be the same action. Nothing says they can't be the same action. It's like having 4 runners at a race and the gun going off, all four are going to start.
"BUT If that doesn't work" set the first to be when he casts a spell or whatever, then the second one to be "I shoot the wizard when I have taken a shot at the wizard" third being when I have shot twice, and fourth being when I have shot three times. thus ensuring that they all get to go off at the wizard when the trigger action occurs.
Do you have proof of that? I see 4 readied action, aka 4 runners. Each are waiting for something before they go off, aka each are waiting for a signal to start the race. It could be all the racers wait for the gunshot. It could be that 1 waits for gunshot, 1 waits for the word GO!, 1 waits for one to finish, and the last waits till he sees another one start. In both cases each racer is waiting for their own trigger for when to go off.
no... situation one is like 1 runner trying to start the race 4 times, not 4 runners all starting at the same timeDo you have proof of that? I see 4 readied action, aka 4 runners. Each are waiting for something before they go off, aka each are waiting for a signal to start the race. It could be all the racers wait for the gunshot. It could be that 1 waits for gunshot, 1 waits for the word GO!, 1 waits for one to finish, and the last waits till he sees another one start. In both cases each racer is waiting for their own trigger for when to go off.
yeah, thats actually 4 different triggering events, notice how you had to describe 4 different things to make it work.
in pathfinder you don't get that many simultaneous actions, and the actions you do get are indivisible. casting a spell is one action, therefore a single character gets to ready another single action with that casting as the trigger
EDIT: i do agree you could game the system by readying an action on the spell casting and readying another action based on an ally getting hit with the same spell
no... situation one is like 1 runner trying to start the race 4 times, not 4 runners all starting at the same timeDo you have proof of that? I see 4 readied action, aka 4 runners. Each are waiting for something before they go off, aka each are waiting for a signal to start the race. It could be all the racers wait for the gunshot. It could be that 1 waits for gunshot, 1 waits for the word GO!, 1 waits for one to finish, and the last waits till he sees another one start. In both cases each racer is waiting for their own trigger for when to go off.yeah, thats actually 4 different triggering events, notice how you had to describe 4 different things to make it work.
in pathfinder you don't get that many simultaneous actions, and the actions you do get are indivisible. casting a spell is one action, therefore a single character gets to ready another single action with that casting as the trigger
EDIT: i do agree you could game the system by readying an action on the spell casting and readying another action based on an ally getting hit with the same spell
I'm confused. I have 2 sets, one where each racer is waiting for their own trigger and each chooses gunshot, and one where each has their own trigger and each chooses something different.
Then I say both are examples of each racer having their own triggering event.
|
I read the rule as saying that there must be a 1-to-1 relationship between attacks and triggers. Each attack must have its own trigger.
In that case, your example of a many-to-1 relationship between runners and the gunshot would not be allowed.
Chaining your attacks off one another is technically valid, though violates the intention of the rules as I read them.
If all their triggers are the same, they don't have their own readied action. They'd be sharing a single readied action.
It should probably say "unique" instead of "own" or something, but everyone will read it how they want no matter how clear or unclear it is.
I ready four actions. I fire if:
I'm attacked.
I'm attacked.
I'm attacked.
I'm attacked
Those don't each have their own trigger. I'm just readying the same action four times by grouping them on the same event.
|
"Readying an Action: 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."
Note that the text says "IF the triggered action is part of another character's activities". I have always taken that to mean it does not HAVE to be. You could ready an action to dodge any boulders bouncing your way during an avalanche... or to cast Feather Fall if your Fly spell suddenly cuts out in an area of wild magic... or to drink a healing potion when you take any HP damage (could be triggered by any of multiple opponents... or the environment... or an ongoing damage effect). Et cetera. The trigger does not have to be the action of a specific other character.
The text also says that you specify "the conditions under which you will take" the readied action. Conditions, plural. As in, 'I shoot that guy if he moves, attacks, casts a spell, and/or fails to surrender' (i.e. scenario 3 above). You only get one action, but seemingly can have multiple conditions that would trigger it.
Given those two readings of normal readied actions I see the primary difference of Overwatch being that you can ready multiple actions rather than just one. It is increasing the number of actions you get... not the complexity of the triggers, because you could already do that.
Thus, I'd allow scenario 1... and all four attacks on scenario 3 if ANY of the trigger conditions were met.
They all have their own trigger, just not unique triggers. If the line said, "as a full-round action you can ready up to four ranged attacks, each with its unique triggering event. You take a –2 penalty on attack rolls made with these readied actions."
Then I'd agree that it's saying 1 to 1.
But here's something that I think can help this. is there any support, for either way, to show if the trigger is tied to the readied action or to the character? If the trigger is to the character then I'd agree that each has to be unique. If it's tied to the readied action, then by default each has it's own trigger and the condition is met.
But personally, since there's a legal and valid way to "all have the same trigger" I'd never enforce "correct verbiage" on someone who says they want it all to be the same trigger. I'd just view all same trigger as shorthand for having each later action trigger off making the previous action.
"each with its own" definitely means a single unique one-to-one relationship.
4 runners all waiting on a gunshot to start a race don't have 'their own' starting signal, they are sharing a signal (indeed, that would be the point of such a set-up.) For each to have their own starting signal, the signals would have to be different.
|
Alternate scenario 1
Action/Condition 1 - Attack if they cast a spell
Action/Condition 2 - Attack if they are shot at
Action/Condition 3 - Attack if they are shot at again
Action/Condition 4 - Attack if they are shot at a third timeProblem solved. :]
This works. The only problem with this is you cannot use Clustered Shots, as you are not making a full attack.
I've heard people argue that you can only ready an action in regards to another action due to the language in the "ready an action" rules.
So you could ready an action if an enemy cast a spell (since casting a spell is an action), but not if he breathes, since breathing isn't really defined as an action within the game.
If that is true, then you may not be able to ready an action off of your consecutive arrow shots, or (as suggested in my first post) for an enemy failing to surrender.
(I for one, don't believe it to be true; you can ready for just about anything.)
Eh, enough people are saying that I'm wrong that I'll accept that. I probably have the non-standard default reading of "each it's own" if I'm getting this many people saying that it's supposed to equal unique.
I've heard people argue that you can only ready an action in regards to another action.
So you could read an action if an enemy cast a spell (since casting a spell is an action), but not if he breathes, since breathing isn't really defined as an action within the game.
If that is true, then you couldn't ready an action off of your consecutive arrow shots.
(I for one, don't believe it to be true.)
why not? an attack action is an action, the whole point of the overwatch vortex is that you get to ready more actions
why not? an attack action is an action, the whole point of the overwatch vortex is that you get to ready more actions
I've edited my above post for clarity.
I've heard people argue that you can only ready an action in regards to another action due to the language in the "ready an action" rules.
So you could ready an action if an enemy cast a spell (since casting a spell is an action), but not if he breathes, since breathing isn't really defined as an action within the game.
If that is true, then you may not be able to ready an action off of your consecutive arrow shots, or (as suggested in my first post) for an enemy failing to surrender.
(I for one, don't believe it to be true; you can ready for just about anything.)
you could always tie it to your readied action, I'd be quite impressed if you could show how a readied action isn't an action. Then the trigger would be your first readied action and so on.
you could always tie it to your readied action, I'd be quite impressed if you could show how a readied action isn't an action. Then the trigger would be your first readied action and so on.
yeah that would work i think, you just ready an action based on the previous attack, you could hit one guy 4 times that way.
all i was saying earlier was that you couldnt ready 4 actions on a single action/trigger, but successive readied actions would work
Eh, enough people are saying that I'm wrong that I'll accept that. I probably have the non-standard default reading of "each it's own" if I'm getting this many people saying that it's supposed to equal unique.
It's not that I necessarily think it's wrong, it just feels a bit system-gaming to me.
"You can ready four different actions with different triggers."
- I will set it up so that one trigger then guarantees I get to use all four readied actions.
Yes, they all have technically different triggers, but it's just a string of things all caused by the same initial trigger. It feels like that's not supposed to be how it works. (Note: I'm not saying I'm necessarily against taking advantage of the grey in rules language.)
Readying actions based upon your readied actions seems doable. However, as a GM I'd make sure they were distinct actions, not "I ready an attack after I attack after I attack after I'm attacked", so you can get effectively four attacks off of what amounts to one trigger.
"I ready a trip if someone steps next to me."
"I ready to attack anybody who falls prone next to me."
...
etc.
That seems like good, clever planning.
You'd think that readying an action off of your own readied action would cause some causality issues, since the action occurs before the trigger that caused it. So your last readied attack would go off before your first, then the spell would occur if the caster survived the damage and made his concentration check. (Or would it be concentration checks?) :P
you could set it to be when your readied action finishes, which keeps them in order.
This works. The only problem with this is you cannot use Clustered Shots, as you are not making a full attack.Alternate scenario 1
Action/Condition 1 - Attack if they cast a spell
Action/Condition 2 - Attack if they are shot at
Action/Condition 3 - Attack if they are shot at again
Action/Condition 4 - Attack if they are shot at a third timeProblem solved. :]
You can't use Clustered Shots anyway, because this is a readied action, not a full attack action.
I don't see that each readied action must have a unique trigger. The text says "up to four attacks, each with its own trigger." "With its own trigger" is grammatically ambiguous. It can mean any of the following:
1) Each attack may have its own trigger (but this is not required).
2) Each attack must have its own trigger (but this does not inherently mean that each attack must have a unique trigger).
3) Each attack must have its own unique trigger (and no two attacks may have the same trigger).
Most people here seem to be reading it as #3, but that is not the only reading.
At any rate, why can't I just say:
Ready attack 1: If he starts to cast a spell, I shoot him.
Ready attack 2: If he continues to cast after the first shot (either because the first shot missed or because he makes his concentration check), I shoot him.
Ready attack 3: If he continues to cast after the second shot, I shoot him.
Ready attack 4: If he continues to cast after the third shot, I shoot him.
Each of those is a separate, definable condition that can be evaluated individually:
"I fire shot 1. Is he still casting?"
"Yes--he made his concentration check."
"I fire shot 2. Is he still casting?"
"Yes, the shot missed."
"I fire shot 3. Is he still casting?"
"No, he lost the spell."
"Then I don't get shot 4, because my trigger condition is not met."
I don't see that each readied action must have a unique trigger. The text says "up to four attacks, each with its own trigger." "With its own trigger" is grammatically ambiguous. It can mean any of the following:
1) Each attack may have its own trigger (but this is not required).
2) Each attack must have its own trigger (but this does not inherently mean that each attack must have a unique trigger).
3) Each attack must have its own unique trigger (and no two attacks may have the same trigger).Most people here seem to be reading it as #3, but that is not the only reading.
There is only ambiguity here because you are adding words to make it ambiguous... if i say "he has his own apple" and then i say "she has her own apple" the fact that there are two apples is clear enough that most people wouldn't question it (except on a rules forum i guess).
On the other hand the rest of this is (i think) what the thread is pretty much agreeing on:
At any rate, why can't I just say:
Ready attack 1: If he starts to cast a spell, I shoot him.
Ready attack 2: If he continues to cast after the first shot (either because the first shot missed or because he makes his concentration check), I shoot him.
Ready attack 3: If he continues to cast after the second shot, I shoot him.
Ready attack 4: If he continues to cast after the third shot, I shoot him.Each of those is a separate, definable condition that can be evaluated individually:
"I fire shot 1. Is he still casting?"
"Yes--he made his concentration check."
"I fire shot 2. Is he still casting?"
"Yes, the shot missed."
"I fire shot 3. Is he still casting?"
"No, he lost the spell."
"Then I don't get shot 4, because my trigger condition is not met."
|
|
Another nice thing is that you can Vital Strike on each attack. This means that the Crossbowman archetype actually pretty good. I really like this style.
Expect table variation on this. You can ready up to 4 attacks, not up to 4 standard action attacks, which is what is needed for vital strike.
|
Another nice thing is that you can Vital Strike on each attack. This means that the Crossbowman archetype actually pretty good. I really like this style.Expect table variation on this. You can ready up to 4 attacks, not up to 4 standard action attacks, which is what is needed for vital strike.
Did a feat recently come out for doing this? It was either vital strikes on readies or on AoOs I think.
when you ready it's normally a standard action you're readying. So does this change to readying four attacks, or 4 standard action attack actions?
There was a Weapon Mastery thing that let you take a Vital Strike as part of a readied action or AoO. But ONLY a Vital Strike, not the ones higher up in the chain.
So, meh. Another d6/d8 of dmg.
I personally wouldn't let you ready an action off something you yourself do. that's totally abusable.
I ready an action to shoot when I say "One!"
I ready an action to shoot after I say "Two!"
etc.
basically, you just shout on your turn and now you get 4 attacks at -2 to hit, every turn, in addition to your full attack.
So, no, it definitely has to be in reaction to something happening TO you, or something someone ELSE does. Not something that you do or that you decide to do.
So, no readying an action to shoot if you already shot. That's reacting to something you decided to do...take the shot.
Furthermore, I believe that 'shoot if he starts casting a spell' is one event, even if your first arrow misses/doesn't stop him, you're basically going off the exact same readied action and condition. So, no, I wouldn't let you keep shooting a readied action at him if he keeps casting once you shoot him. He's STILL spellcasting, he didn't start anew, you're just trying to stack actions. You're also once again trying to set a readied action to YOUR action (the shot, and his reaction to it), but you're still basically on HIS same action for the whole length of that example chain (him trying to cast a spell). So, it would violate the unique trigger for me.
So, four shots, with four unique trigger conditions that have NO element of your personal decision in them. No stacking on the same condition, either.
===Aelryinth
There was a Weapon Mastery thing that let you take a Vital Strike as part of a readied action or AoO. But ONLY a Vital Strike, not the ones higher up in the chain.
So, meh. Another d6/d8 of dmg.
I personally wouldn't let you ready an action off something you yourself do. that's totally abusable.
I ready an action to shoot when I say "One!"
I ready an action to shoot after I say "Two!"
etc.basically, you just shout on your turn and now you get 4 attacks at -2 to hit, every turn, in addition to your full attack.
So, no, it definitely has to be in reaction to something happening TO you, or something someone ELSE does. Not something that you do or that you decide to do.
So, no readying an action to shoot if you already shot. That's reacting to something you decided to do...take the shot.Furthermore, I believe that 'shoot if he starts casting a spell' is one event, even if your first arrow misses/doesn't stop him, you're basically going off the exact same readied action and condition. So, no, I wouldn't let you keep shooting a readied action at him if he keeps casting once you shoot him. He's STILL spellcasting, he didn't start anew, you're just trying to stack actions. You're also once again trying to set a readied action to YOUR action (the shot, and his reaction to it), but you're still basically on HIS same action for the whole length of that example chain (him trying to cast a spell). So, it would violate the unique trigger for me.
So, four shots, with four unique trigger conditions that have NO element of your personal decision in them. No stacking on the same condition, either.
===Aelryinth
I don't think you realize that you don't get to make any attacks on your turn when you use overwatch style. So you're trading your full attack, probably with multi-shot so 5 arrows, to have 4 readied actions. And sorry you feel that, if an arrow has been shot at him, is a bad trigger for a readied action but it's a completely valid choice. Nothing limits what your trigger for readied actions are.
And personally the biggest thing is that these "abusable problem cases" aren't a problem. I ready an action to shoot when I say "one", I end my turn and then say "one" boom, I get my 1 attack that I could have made with my standard action anyways. And since you're speaking your action would go after their action, since talking shouldn't interrupt their turn.
The phrase "each with it's own" is vague enough that there's no such thing as strict RAW for it. As I see it, there's already a system in place for multiple off-turn attacks dependent on triggers, namely Attacks of Opportunity, and I'd assume that the new system has the same one-attack-per-trigger limitation unless given reason to believe otherwise.
The "each with its own triggering event" line, to my readying, implies that you are allowed to have each shot trigger on different things, ex. 2 shot at casting, 1 shot at moving and another at the fighter for drawing a weapon.
It is a perk, not a limitation. Without this clause we could only assume that the 4 attacks MUST happen on the same trigger, since before this we've only ever had 1 readied action per turn. Therefore, yes, you can shoot 4 times for 1 triggering event, since each shot has the "shoot at X moment" trigger.
You're giving up a full attack and the possibility that your target does something different denying you your shot, or that your shot becomes impossible when it was possible on your turn (cover, allies, modifiers, you being affected by something else), denying you your attacks again. Big trade off.
ask yourself this:
If a PC readied an action to "attack anyone who comes through this door" and then 4000 NPCs ran through the door, would he get 4000 attacks?
No, he gets 1, then his readied action ends. All the feat lets you do is prepare for more things, not get more than one standard action (because thats what you do when you ready, you delay your standard action)
have you even read the feats?
|
|
If I rephrase the feat without the limitation, it becomes :
Overwatch Vortex (Combat)
Prerequisite(s): Overwatch Style, Overwatch Tactician, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus with the chosen weapon, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit(s): While using the Overwatch Style, as a full-round action you can ready up to four ranged attacks. You take a –2 penalty on attack rolls made with these readied actions.
How would this be different from the actual feat ?
This difference will show the proper interpretation.
|
|
If I rephrase the feat without the limitation, it becomes :
Overwatch Vortex (Combat)
Prerequisite(s): Overwatch Style, Overwatch Tactician, Precise Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus with the chosen weapon, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit(s): While using the Overwatch Style, as a full-round action you can ready up to four ranged attacks. You take a –2 penalty on attack rolls made with these readied actions.
How would this be different from the actual feat?
That wording doesn't say anything about triggers, so it would be entirely reasonable to interpret it as allowing different triggers for each attack OR one trigger for all attacks.
This difference will show the proper interpretation.
All interpretations are proper. Some match the intent. In this case, we don't know the intent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aye, additional language seems to have been added to the feat to make sure that you can't get all the readied attacks on ONE action, i.e. that the attacks can't stack on one another.
"When I shoot another arrow, I shoot another arrow after I launched that one," is not something I'd let fly as a readied action, since both would have the same trigger event, the one that launched the first arrow. Anything else is just sophistry.
i.e. if each Readied Action can't be triggered independently of its own merit, I would immediately disallow them. IN the case here, each Readied Action is now dependent on the prior Readied Action. That's not a stand-alone action, i.e. if you cut out the other readied actions, you effectively have something that cannot happen.
So, unless it could stand BY ITSELF as a readied action, I wouldn't let it go. That seems to be in the spirit of the feat.
If your player wants to make a readied action that activates off the results of a previous readied action, just look at it 'by itself', removing all other readied actions.
In the mage example above, 'is he still casting after I shoot an arrow at him? If so, I shoot him again.' is totally dependent on a first arrow being shot, AND the subject still casting. In other words, its dependent on TWO triggers...the previous readied action, and the caster.
On its own, it CANNOT be fired, since there will be no preceding arrow.
I wouldn't let it happen. Unique events, each attack. No stacking of readied actions from one another. You respond to what others do, not to other readied actions.
==Aelryinth
I don't see that each readied action must have a unique trigger. The text says "up to four attacks, each with its own trigger." "With its own trigger" is grammatically ambiguous. It can mean any of the following:
1) Each attack may have its own trigger (but this is not required).
2) Each attack must have its own trigger (but this does not inherently mean that each attack must have a unique trigger).
3) Each attack must have its own unique trigger (and no two attacks may have the same trigger).Most people here seem to be reading it as #3, but that is not the only reading.
At any rate, why can't I just say:
Ready attack 1: If he starts to cast a spell, I shoot him.
Ready attack 2: If he continues to cast after the first shot (either because the first shot missed or because he makes his concentration check), I shoot him.
Ready attack 3: If he continues to cast after the second shot, I shoot him.
Ready attack 4: If he continues to cast after the third shot, I shoot him.Each of those is a separate, definable condition that can be evaluated individually:
"I fire shot 1. Is he still casting?"
"Yes--he made his concentration check."
"I fire shot 2. Is he still casting?"
"Yes, the shot missed."
"I fire shot 3. Is he still casting?"
"No, he lost the spell."
"Then I don't get shot 4, because my trigger condition is not met."
All I'd say is that I don't think "still casting" is a valid trigger for me. Obviously, YMMV. I think this is one of those areas that looks good when you come up with the idea and write it out, but in retrospect needed a lot more explanation.
"Still casting" feels to me like it's being triggered by the same thing - casting the spell. So I can certainly see why people read it differently, at my table you'll need to be more specific and less boot-strappy. This is one of those "expect table variation" scenarios unless and until we get a bit more direction.
Fret, the problem there is not only it's the 'same trigger' as the first one (casting the spell), but all the following readied actions are based on the first readied action, as well!
In other words, unless the first readied action activates, none of the others do.
AND, note: Only the first shot has a single trigger - he must be casting.
All the second ones have TWO triggers - he must have been shot at, AND he must still be casting.
Two triggers is a no-no. Triggering off your own readied action is a no-no (it's impossible in normal circumstances), since each readied action has to stand alone.
=Aelryinth