Would a flow chart help?
We can see that in a duel situation, when the kobold wins initiative and adopts a tactic of readying for his opponent's attack every round, and where the fighter has to take an initial move action to close in, the tactic ultimately resolves to one of the following:
-Normal combat with no action economy advantage, or
-Normal combat with one round of action economy advantage for the fighter.
Depending on whether the kobold correctly guesses the fighter's upcoming action to start out.
There is a third path in which the fighter dies horribly from doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, but this path is only applicable to fighters without a sane and intelligent controller, and thus more of a concern for a MMORPG than a tabletop game.
Yeah,
My issue is with the first step - which i consider silly even if it lasts one turn. It makes a mockery of the charge action and turn's every fight into a 'duel' which isnt always appropriate.
My second issue is with later steps for creatures with animal intelligence or lower. Which accounts for probably a third of creatures my group normally faces.
It's fine to consider it silly, but the point is, the tactic resolves either fairly neutrally or else to the disadvantage of the user. As such, while it may be silly, it's not a good silly tactic and thus you're unlikely to see it at your table, offending you with its silliness.
As for animals, while they may not be humanoid intelligent, I don't personally consider a tactic like "spending a round full defending while you maneuver for position" is too complicated for, say, a wolf.
If you do decide it too complicated, I might suggest that perhaps any subsequent issues are more a result of that decision than anything else.
However, I'd also offer as a plan B, in case you're wed to the idea (or in case your PCs fight a particularly non-intelligent animal, like something frenzied and rabid), that animals a) often have reach, rendering the tactic moot, or b) often have a choice of targets to attack, and might instinctually be inclined to round from the target who looks like he is waiting for them and menacing them with a weapon to the squishier PC who isn't. Combine that with c) fighting from an environment that offers camoflage or suprise, and you've got a good solid arsenal of animal strategies that still work fine.
One of them ought to be able to help you out most of the time.
The prey isn't doing something that surprises it. The prey is waiting to all intents and purposes.
I suggest each side re-states the argument for and against each interpretation for the benefit of the FAQ request then calls it a day as this moved away from a rules question and into a 'how we play the game' conversation.
I don't actually see a strong competing interpretation being offered. Most people seem to have accepted that one can add a 5' step to one's action after the ready is resolved, and that this, combined with not acting like an AI, solves any infinite loop/invincibility issues. We seem to mostly now be arguing whether the rule is silly or not, not what the rule is, or even whether the rule is game-breaking or not.
Personally, I feel that even if the edge case is silly, it's not a silliness that will appear at most tables or, even if it appears, be significant enough to justify changing the broader rule, which affects plenty of non-silly, perfectly straightforward situations.
Perhaps I'm wrong about the seeming lack of much current disagreement over the written rules, though? We have after all been discussing 5' steps and other such hidden gems for a while, and not the original question of the thread, can you change to a different action after your action triggers a readied action. So I suppose like Kain I might have lost track of people's positions on the original question.
Is there anybody still hanging around who does think that I can, say, start casting a spell, eat a readied arrow, and then decide that instead of rolling a Concentration check and possibly losing my spell, I'm instead going to change to channeling positive energy?
Hey, that sounds too good to be true. Not only can I avoid losing my spell, I can undo the arrow's damage too.
I don't subscribe to that.
(And I'd actually consider it way more of a problem than anything you can come up with involving kobolds and 5' steps).
I also don't think there's anything in the rules that suggests that you can do that, so I'm not sure there's any unclarity that might warrant a FAQ. But if there is a strong case to be stated for it, then by all means...
Coriat. If you have made your mind up then I don't think the FAQ would be there for you. You'll continue to play the way you play and there won't be any problems with your game.
For everyone else, we would like the position clarified as the 91 FAQ requests confirm.
The arguments were all made in the first thirty posts or so. Everything after that point has been repetition or context.
If I recall, your response was to change the goalposts from a fighter-vs-kobold duel to a party-vs-group encounter. Which is fine (group battles are more commmon, after all), except that I asked you to show how the original kobold tactic is beneficial at all outside of a duel and you haven't.
I most certainly have.
Or succeeds in group battles, because the kobold is really only there to meatshield for the kobold shaman behind him.
Because we both realize that the nobody with a brain would try this in a group battle.
The kobolds simply ready a swing and 5 foot step at your attack without saying "at me", or ready a spear attack without specifying melee or ranged. If you're adjacent when you swing they stab you and 5 foot back out of the way. If they're further away they throw and then 5 foot back.
The ready trick still works with an adjacent fighter unless the fighter has more than 1 attack under the dancing kobold interpretation. The fighter CANNOT 5 foot up to compensate because his attack already missed. No take backsies, you can't 5 foot step then attack any more than you an move then attack.
Again, once you past that point and the fighter doesn't have to act like an idiot, neither do the kobolds. They can start adapting to what you do and start their own readied tactics which becomes a weird game of rock siccor paper for what readied actions beats what readied actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't really been involved in this thread, but maybe that makes me a good candidate to actually answer Coriat's request as best as I can.
Is there anybody still hanging around who does think that I can, say, start casting a spell, eat a readied arrow, and then decide that instead of rolling a Concentration check and possibly losing my spell, I'm instead going to change to channeling positive energy?
Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell.” If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her concentration check result).
So, interrupting spellcasters is called out as a specific event that can be done using the ready action. I don't think anybody has argued that someone casting a spell can change to something else, because it is specifically called out.
The issue is partly with the fact that the spellcasting is specifically called out, so it isn't clear whether it is just an example or an exemption. The rules don't actually say that the triggering action is lost or disrupted in the case of other actions like a melee attack.
For all other actions, the main debate is over two lines:
The action occurs just before the action that triggers it.
Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.
The first line says that the readied action occurs before the triggering action. Meaning, as paradoxical as it is, some view it as the action having not happened yet, therefore the action can still be changed.
The second line can be read as if the action has to be continued, but it isn't exactly clear if it is required to do so or not.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the rules aren't quite clear enough for either side, and that either one results in a bit of ridiculousness. On the one hand, you have a readied action that can occur and then the triggering action change in a way that the readied action wouldn't have been set off in the first place. On the other hand, you have a triggering attack that somehow paused mid-air for enough time for the readying creature to do their own attack and also move away (it seems like the attack should either be fast enough that the readied creature wouldn't have time to do both, or slow enough that it would be easy to halt as soon as the triggering creature saw their target moving). Either one seems like a resulting oddity of turn-based combat trying too hard to emulate real-time combat, which is why I don't like readied actions in general.
Couldn't sum it up better myself Ziere.
You can overcome this by switching to a reach weapon or having the step up feat. But, giving all enemies one of these options is not plausible for me. Neither is enemies readying actions in order to ready an action or doing nothing for a round as has been suggested. I would like the FAQ to specificy that you can't take a 5 ft step as a ready action to avoid an attack the trigger and readied action happen simultaneously.
The ready trick still works with an adjacent fighter unless the fighter has more than 1 attack under the dancing kobold interpretation. The fighter CANNOT 5 foot up to compensate because his attack already missed. No take backsies, you can't 5 foot step then attack any more than you an move then attack.
Ah... ok. So you reject the 'during' part of
You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.
And so that's why it's still a problem for you.
I understand better, now, why you still consider the ready an issue, although I'm not clear what prompts you to assert that after the ready resolves, the fighter cannot take a 5' step during his attack action.
Alternately, I'm not sure you understand my position, because you seem still, even now, to insist upon parsing "during" as "before," when I have never proposed that the fighter take a 5' step before his attack action. I'm not clear why, if you understood "during," you would write the following:
No take backsies, you can't 5 foot step attack
I can only link back to prior posts during ;) the thread.
So... why not during? What rule prompts you to deny our fighter the power to take a 5' step while he is attacking, and insist that he would have to step, then attack?
Regular old standard attack action, regular old 5' step during it.
Couldn't sum it up better myself Ziere.
You can overcome this by switching to a reach weapon or having the step up feat. But, giving all enemies one of these options is not plausible for me. Neither is enemies readying actions in order to ready an action or doing nothing for a round as has been suggested. I would like the FAQ to specificy that you can't take a 5 ft step as a ready action to avoid an attack the trigger and readied action happen simultaneously.
In that case, I'd suggest that advocating for a rules change, where the rule is not unclear, is inappropriate for a FAQ request.
There is no uncertainty surrounding this - you are explicitly allowed to take the 5' step. Just dislike of the current rules.
Re: your proposed solution for the group of kobolds to use ranged attacks, BNW, if the kobolds delay their ranged attacks until after you're in melee, with likely soft cover and definite -4 to hit for firing into melee, they're as good as wasting their turns anyway. Kobold attack bonuses aren't that good to start with.
So it still isn't a tactic that works out to the overall team advantage. Trading eight regular ranged attacks against the fighter for one regular attack and seven at -4 to -8 isn't a good trade, when you're only targeting 25% of the other team's actions.
And you're still handing the guy you pick the power to cast quickened mass daze with no saving throw against your entire team just by doing something else.
Or are you assuming that the kobold takes a 5' step back on his turn, then readies, and takes another 5' step back during the ready? That one doesn't work; he only gets one 5' step, so starting from adjacent, he either moves (no 5' step when ready time comes), or readies and 5' steps during the ready (leaving him in range of his opponent's 5' step).
The first caveat was what tripped BNW up when he would have had the kobold move back 30'.
You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round.
The bolded part doesn't need to happen.
If we assume both have a regular Longsword, Kobold readies, and Fighter approaches, attacks, Kobold takes his Readied Action, and then at the end of his Readied Action, 5-foots. At the start of the next round, 5-footing ability resets, Kobold goes first again (because he readied, and so he's at the top), readies the same thing and proxy, and Fighter approaches, attacks, Kobold takes his Readied Action, and then 5-foots again.
Repeat that ad nauseum until the Fighter is dead.
To be honest, I only included Polearms because in addition to the Readied Action on Round 1, you get a free Attack of Opportunity on top of it, and if you have Combat Reflexes, anyone stupid enough to try and charge you would get Tripped before they got close enough. Although the difference is minor, it's great if you can crit-fish (though sadly, the best Reach weapon is a Bardiche, with a 19-20/X2 modifier).
If we assume both have a regular Longsword, Kobold readies, and Fighter approaches, attacks, Kobold takes his Readied Action, and then at the end of his Readied Action, 5-foots. At the start of the next round, 5-footing ability resets, Kobold goes first again (because he readied, and so he's at the top), readies the same thing and proxy, and Fighter approaches, attacks, Kobold takes his Readied Action, and then 5-foots again.Repeat that ad nauseum until the Fighter is dead.
So we've found out what happens to AI fighters. Consult the flow chart at the top of this page for the alternative paths open to human-controlled fighters.
Coriat you keep repeating yourself. Ziere has explained the problem I have explained why the solutions you mention are not satisfying. That's it, that's why we want an FAQ. We don't reject any rules as written.
Your flow chart adds nothing new, doesn't solve the essential problem we are discussing.
You are going back to talking about advantage and over complicating what is a very straightforward question.
@ Ziere Tole: The problem with that interpretation is that if you remove the concept of the proxy happening for the trigger, then by the transitive property, your readied action never triggers, which means it wouldn't have been a valid readied action. That makes many other readied actions invalid, because the proxy never occurs when it's supposed to occur (on the proxy), it only works before the proxy takes places, ergo it never works. Period. Remember that just because it occurs before the action is taken doesn't mean that the action isn't being taken, which is required in order for the proxy to occur anyway.
Also note that it says he continues his actions if he is capable of doing so. That means that if he declared to attack the Kobold, and the Kobold readies to 5-foot and attack (or attack and 5-foot). So once the Kobold's readied action occurs. Last I checked, that action didn't invalidate the Fighter's ability to attack, so his attack still goes off. Into an empty square. Hrm...
Coriat you keep repeating yourself. Ziere has explained the problem I have explained why the solutions you mention are not satisfying. That's it, that's why we want an FAQ. We don't reject any rules as written.
Your flow chart adds nothing new, doesn't solve the essential problem we are discussing.
You are going back to talking about advantage and over complicating what is a very straightforward question.
I actually misunderstood your post, and I apologize. I thought you were talking about removing 5' steps from readies, not what you were actually talking about.
Past my bedtime, I guess :P
Re: advantage, though, if the chief complaint against this tactic is its silliness - then if it isn't advantageous, and is silly, nobody will use it, and it will not offend anybody's sense of propriety. Much as is actually the case in my group, in which the tactic is understood to be a possibility, but a generally worthless one. So advantageousness does seem relevent to your complaint.
The Sword, You're doing an awful lot of posting for having bowed out a couple of times now. ;)
Also, the rules support how this works with out any take backs of actions, and without any non-happening triggers. As written it's the obvious way the rules play out. You think it's silly, has anyone in your games used it? Do you use it? Then don't worry about it.
Why are we discussing this? I probably will never use this as a player, and I also will probably never use this as a DM, but it's how the rules work and make the most sense now. Rules forum, we argue for the rule itself, not necessarily to use the rule. Your view is basically asking for a rules change, not really a clarification, as the most common rebuttal used are, "it's a silly tactic" and "it's not fair for the kobold to live" and "an enemy preparing for his opponent should be disadvantaged, not have the advantage." And I feel a fair amount of the 91 faqs are just wanting to prove the other side wrong, not that they feel there's two valid ways this works.
I will add this to what Coriat has already handled.
If your complaint is that the rules 'should' allow things to be resolved at the same time, or 'should' prevent 5-ft steps, that's fine. I'm not going to argue that, because I don't really care. My point has ever been that if the rules themselves are followed, the concerns raised about 'invincible' characters never emerge.
If you think you can provide a setup in which the readied action can be shown to be in most ways superior or overpowering, I welcome it. I will deconstruct any such scenario and point out to you why it does not, cannot or will not resolve as you have imagined.
Okay here's one Kain. I'm only able to to make one attack on my turn due to bab. The enemy is forced to make a charge against me on his next turn. I ready a brace weapon against his charge. My initiative had me right before him anyways. When he charges I get my braced attack and deal more damage than if I had moved and attacked him. How is this not superior? Where is the flaw?
I understand better, now, why you still consider the ready an issue, although I'm not clear what prompts you to assert that after the ready resolves, the fighter cannot take a 5' step during his attack action.
Because that gives you Schrodinger's fighter. What squares does he threaten while moving while attacking?
So... why not during? What rule prompts you to deny our fighter the power to take a 5' step while he is attacking, and insist that he would have to step, then attack?
Because you can 5 foot step during a full attack, not during any individual attack within that full attack. They're not the same thing.
Okay here's one Kain. I'm only able to to make one attack on my turn due to bab. The enemy is forced to make a charge against me on his next turn. I ready a brace weapon against his charge. My initiative had me right before him anyways. When he charges I get my braced attack and deal more damage than if I had moved and attacked him. How is this not superior? Where is the flaw?
Why is the enemy forced to make a charge against you? Who are the other combatants in this scenario? Is this a one on one fight with Chargey McChargerson and you?
Because when you ready your action with a spear, the last thing I do is charge. I drink a potion in front of you and move half way in. Utter waste of your turn, and the next round starts with me in normal range and buffed. Or I move in under total defense, enjoying a +4 bonus to AC the next round and still wasting your turn.
I'm not even sure the endgame merits arguing against the scenario though. You do one attack that deals more damage...the superior condition is met (assuming your scenario can be defended), but is this what you call 'overpowering'? Is this akin to melee invincibility?
The argument could be made, that both the readied action and the AOO happen on the same trigger. So the fighter moves up to the archer and whacks him. Then the archer may use his 5-foot step and full attack (if he still has a bow in hand since the AOO was meant to be a disarm).You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.The argument we're making is that, if the Archer did not move, and committed to a Full Attack Action against a readied action to move adjacent to the Archer, that Archer can still 5-foot step out of the enemy's reach and fire off a Full Attack without any repercussions before rolling the dice (which simulates the attack, and that causes the provocation).
That could make sense, but then the Archer can 5-foot before the AoO is executed (that is, before it even begins), meaning that AoO either A. would not go off because there is no actual cause for the proxy, or B. the AoO still goes off, but now affects an empty square. In either case, the Archer is missed, and depending on the interpretation, they either retain or lose that AoO. (I'm in favor of losing it, since it's consistent with the RAW interpretation of no takebacks.) Of course, since the Archer will go after the readied creature, he'll still be subject to a full attack of Death.
I understand better, now, why you still consider the ready an issue, although I'm not clear what prompts you to assert that after the ready resolves, the fighter cannot take a 5' step during his attack action.
Because that gives you Schrodinger's fighter. What squares does he threaten while moving while attacking?
So... why not during? What rule prompts you to deny our fighter the power to take a 5' step while he is attacking, and insist that he would have to step, then attack?Because you can 5 foot step during a full attack, not during any individual attack within that full attack. They're not the same thing.
Speaking of Schrodinger's Fighter, you're sitting there saying that you can 5-foot step during a full attack, and then you say that you cannot 5-foot step during a full attack. Irony much?
It's quite clear that it's one or the other, it cannot be both, especially when we're resolving the action (which is the key component of opening the box and finding out the result), because each of those individual attacks are a part of, and comprise what that Full Attack is. Trying to use that as a discrepancy is not only silly, but also makes no sense, when you're using it as a means to both allow and deny a rule whenever you feel like it's "breaking the game." Rule 0 is a last resort, and is only rules-valid when it's the only thing that is mentioned in relation, or is primarily relevant to the rule.
After all, I can most certainly stand in place with the Cleaving Finish feat chain, kill an enemy, 5-foot to another enemy to carry out my Cleaving Finish attack, and continue to resolve my Full Attack against the new enemy, because I don't have to declare that I'm devoting my entire Full Attack against an enemy, especially when I am surrounded by them, and since the RAW says I can take a 5-foot step during my actions, at any time, then I most certainly can do this. In fact, you could do that with the regular Cleave feat chain, assuming the targets that you would affect are legal, and affect more creatures that way.
Also, if he's 5 footing during his attack
1) schrodingers archer is in both squares, so can be disarmed from the first
2) The readied action was to move next to the archer when he fired, if the archer is firing from both squares, the teleporting fighter is adjacent to both squares.
The rules really aren't built for this and that shows when you go down the rabbit hole.
Not exactly, BNW. Let's bring up the Cleave example again. Since nobody seemed to correct me, I'll go ahead and bring this to attention. Here's the fine details:
Cleave: Can I take a 5-foot step in the middle of my attempt to use the Cleave feat, to bring another foe within reach?
No. Cleave is a special action and the conditions for that action are checked at the moment you begin your action. At that moment, all of the available targets are checked to make sure they adjacent to each other and within reach. You cannot take a 5-foot step in the middle of the action and check conditions again. If you do not have two targets within reach, adjacent to each other at the start of the attack, you could not even attempt to make an attack using Cleave.
Note that the FAQ refers to Cleave as being its own specific Standard Action that has its own rules regarding what targets are eligible the moment you take the action, and utilizing any movement during the Cleave action does not increase the amount of creatures you could normally affect with the feat (though you might be eligible for flanking with both of them if the conditions were met). I'm sure the same applies to Great Cleave (so that means on that front, I was incorrect). Cleaving Finish, on the other hand, has completely different mechanics, so I could certainly still use the above tactics with it and still be legal.
With that being said, it's quite clear that you can't be in both squares at once unless there is something specifically stating that you are (i.e. Rules for Medium-sized creature mounted on a Large-sized or larger Mount), and you stating that they are in multiple squares at once, especially without said rule exemption, is demonstrably impossible and fallacious.
The turn flow would be:
Fighter moves closer, and then readies to move adjacent to the Archer when the Archer begins to attack with his Bow.
Archer declares a Ranged Full Attack with Manyshot, Rapid Shot, etc. on another target. Fighter's Readied Action triggers (as the Archer is beginning to Full Attack), moving adjacent to the Archer. Fighter's Readied Action is now completed, and he cannot move any more.
Before the Archer rolls for an attack (which is cause for provocation), he 5-foots away from the Fighter's reach, still being able to execute his Full Attack without provoking for each attack roll he makes.
This does, of course, mean he is vulnerable next turn, as the Fighter will be ahead of him in Initiative, and can 5-foot and Full Attack. Even if the Archer had an Immediate Action he could utilize to 5-foot with, he wouldn't be able to 5-foot, as his ability to 5-foot would not refresh until it became his turn again.
Speaking of Schrodinger's Fighter, you're sitting there saying that you can 5-foot step during a full attack, and then you say that you cannot 5-foot step during a full attack. Irony much?
There;s no irony here, at all. I'm examining different "what if the rules worked like X ____ " scenarios here and finding...
and you stating that they are in multiple squares at once, especially without said rule exemption, is demonstrably impossible and fallacious.
... THIS exact contradiction. Yes, I find it demonstrably impossible and fallacious and its why I have a problem with Coriat's interpretation.
Mind you I have some problem with EVERY interpretation including mine but I've been pretty upfront about that.
Cleaving Finish, on the other hand, has completely different mechanics, so I could certainly still use the above tactics with it and still be legal.
ok, bizzare, overly legalistic, munchkiny conjecture based off of no purple dragons logic is the LAST place to try to derive rules from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules themselves are written in a contradictory way. The wording is that the readied action occurs before the triggering action. Well, how is action B responding to action A if action B is occurring before it? The rules already dictate that things occur in a paradoxical way.
The reasoning that the attacker had "started his swing" prior to the readied action going off is dubious. If "started his swing" is in any way regarded as part of an action, then you're already breaking how the rules dictate the order of actions occurring. If "started his swing" is not regarded as part of or starting an action, then the action hasn't happened at all yet. And if it hasn't happened, then it hasn't happened, and any prior movement has seen no reason yet to be truncated and stopped.
With this, then, there is the question of what happens to the triggering action that is sitting out there, waiting to happen, after the readied action. Well - the only wording giving guidance to this is that the player "..continues with his actions." So, as long as whatever happens next can be considered "continuing his actions", then it's legal. Anything beyond that is for the GM to decide what qualifies as doing that.
The intended actions simply cannot happen the way it was originally thought out due to new circumstances. You may interpret "attacking player B" as "attacking the square that player B is standing in" - but nothing is requiring you to do this. "Attacking player B" can mean just that "making a melee attack against player B". If you no longer can do that - absolutely nothing in the rules gives direct guidance or conclusion to what happens next. As long as what happens isn't directly violating any rules, then it's legal.
If you say the player loses their action - fine, perfectly reasonable. If you say the player can do something different - fine, perfectly reasonable. Both ways are legal.
For the first one, you're telling someone they must now take (or lose) an action, that they haven't taken yet (per the wording of the rules) that they no longer want to (or can't) take because otherwise a time continuity issue will arise that you don't like. The rules don't dictate that you solve that issue, but you don't like it, so the player must continue with their unwanted action.
For the second, it doesn't matter that letting the player do something different might imply a bunch of things you don't like or consider absurd (i.e. the grabbing for a potion 5 times or whatever). It doesn't matter if you consider what's going on to be a "take-back". None of that is prevented from happening in the rules - and nothing in the rules dictates an absolute path of resolution when faced with a triggering action that cannot happen anymore.
"yeah, but if you can change your mind, then the readied person could go back and change their mind, and then, and then and then..."
Yes, that could happen. But many of you are forgetting something - the possibility of an absurdity does not change what's written in the rules. All it means is that you've found an absurdity. There's nothing magical about identifying an absurdity that allows you to then say "This must not be RAW then."
And the same goes for when time continuity is lost. It doesn't matter that you can't identify something in the timeline for the readied character to be physically responding to. Identifying that doesn't add or remove language to the written rules. It just means you need to then decide as a GM what to do about it, if anything. Remember - at the point where the readied action goes off, that player is already responding to something that hasn't happened yet. Even if you insist the resulting triggering action be carried out in the closest way possible to the intended triggering action, that paradoxical response that you don't like has still already happened because the rules said that it did. Any attempt to claim that any part of the triggering action actually occurred prior to the readied action is breaking the written rule that dictates the order - no matter how much sense it doesn't make to you. If you get through it by saying that the readied action just needs to 'complete' before the triggering action, that's fine, but that's something you're making up to make yourself feel better about the time issue - it's not mandatory that that is how it's playing out.
Let me give you all an example of how the rules as written screw with time in an unforgivable way:
Player A has a reach weapon and high dex, and combat reflexes (note, the example stands even without this, but this stuff helps the point a little)
Player A casts a spell on her turn. Then, throughout the remainder of the round, 5 mutated goblins run at her in a rage. The reach cleric build gets to shine, and with her high dex, takes 5 attacks of opportunity, killing 4 outright, and putting the 5th unconscious.
During the next round, she casts another spell, then notices the unconscious goblin's wounds are healing.
Maybe their mutation is fast healing them, who knows, but I better finish him off, she thinks. But Player A stands there, unable to attack the unconscious goblin even once - even though, he is, by definition, much more vulnerable and defenseless than the next goblin that charges her - who she now, all of a sudden, can attack with no problem at all.
Why? - because attacks of opportunity make no sense at all. They constantly insert unaccounted for time into the round and it makes no sense at all.
Identification of a time paradox, timeline issue, or timing absurdity to make a ruling that something should or can happen a certain way makes sense - but using that identification to claim that it must not be allowed to happen in another certain way, is entirely different and it's a ridiculous claim in light of much of the rest of the game. Finding some way for a ruling to create a bad situation (a subjective claim, btw) doesn't make it wrong or illegal. So, in a discussion about what the rules currently state, it has no power.
Changing one's mind isn't against the rules - no matter how much it turns your stomach to think of it happening. It may be an axiom of how many people play any kind of table top game, and it makes sense why it would be, but it isn't in the Pathfinder rules. There is no concept of "declaring" an action you're taking on your turn in the general context of combat. It is used for specific abilities, but only when the rules are explaining exactly how a particular ability plays out. And, the rules are usually really good about pointing out things that a player cannot take-back or undo.
If you reason that the triggering action is lost, or swings at air, or whatever - that's perfectly fine. But NOT ruling it that way is NOT illegal just because you don't like what it might imply. Two different ways to play something out can both be legal.
With that, if they do FAQ this, it will definitely be in favor of the attacker losing his action. The devs always always side with those that will lose their minds if anything were to ever be left up to the GM at the table.
The 'which square is he in' argument is ridiculous.
If I am a 10th level fighter taking a full attack, I have 2 attacks.
I make one attack against a guy. I currently threaten as per the square I started in. I now use my 5ft. step DURING the full attack to shift north one square. Immediately, for my purposes, I now threaten as though I was in the new square. Since this is not only on my turn but within my action, no one is going to be making/provoking attacks of opportunity or targeting me, so the fact that at the beginning of my action I was in one square and at the end of my action I was in another doesn't come into play. I make my second attack from the northern square.
How is that difficult? At what point does that break down?
With that, if they do FAQ this, it will definitely be in favor of the attacker losing his action. The devs always always side with those that will lose their minds if anything were to ever be left up to the GM at the table.
They didn't for the take 10.
The Sword, You're doing an awful lot of posting for having bowed out a couple of times now. ;)
Also, the rules support how this works with out any take backs of actions, and without any non-happening triggers. As written it's the obvious way the rules play out. You think it's silly, has anyone in your games used it? Do you use it? Then don't worry about it.
Why are we discussing this? I probably will never use this as a player, and I also will probably never use this as a DM, but it's how the rules work and make the most sense now. Rules forum, we argue for the rule itself, not necessarily to use the rule. Your view is basically asking for a rules change, not really a clarification, as the most common rebuttal used are, "it's a silly tactic" and "it's not fair for the kobold to live" and "an enemy preparing for his opponent should be disadvantaged, not have the advantage." And I feel a fair amount of the 91 faqs are just wanting to prove the other side wrong, not that they feel there's two valid ways this works.
"Every time I try to get out they pull me back in!"
The bigger question would be why are you discussing it, when you have just openly said you are arguing for an interpretation that you will never use. We are most certainly arguing for an interpretation that we will use.
No one is asking for a change, just a clarification as has been explained over and over again in these rules. Not just by me. Go back and read them. Even Coriat et al has summarised the problem with his flow chart though from the opposing view. Ziere Tole has summarised this better than I ever could.
It isn't that the tactic that is silly because it isn't fair, or inefficient. It is silly because it takes advantage of a loophole in the 5ft move rules and the paradox of readied action triggers to negate a another characters round with a simple 5ft step. It is silly because the Kobald can attack the fighter but the fighter can't attack the kobald. It is silly because it is a get out of jail card against charges. If you don't have problem with it Chess Pwn, you have made your case, let's leave it to the Devs to decide. If you don't need further clarification then you're ok aren't you...?
Speaking of Schrodinger's Fighter, you're sitting there saying that you can 5-foot step during a full attack, and then you say that you cannot 5-foot step during a full attack. Irony much?There;s no irony here, at all. I'm examining different "what if the rules worked like X ____ " scenarios here and finding...
and you stating that they are in multiple squares at once, especially without said rule exemption, is demonstrably impossible and fallacious.... THIS exact contradiction. Yes, I find it demonstrably impossible and fallacious and its why I have a problem with Coriat's interpretation.
Mind you I have some problem with EVERY interpretation including mine but I've been pretty upfront about that.
Cleaving Finish, on the other hand, has completely different mechanics, so I could certainly still use the above tactics with it and still be legal.ok, bizzare, overly legalistic, munchkiny conjecture based off of no purple dragons logic is the LAST place to try to derive rules from.
The point is that the rules don't mention you inhabiting squares other than what's determined by your size. The only exception listed is when you're Mounted, in which case you count as being in the larger of the two sized squares for all intents and purposes. I don't see how that's difficult to grasp. Being able to shift positions with a non-action, which can be taken at any point in another action being taken (that doesn't involve movement) doesn't invalidate that rule, and you saying that it does is where the line of ridicule is drawn.
And yes, Cleaving Finish and Cleave have zero mechanic similarities, and neither do their Greater counterparts. This means that the FAQ that addresses Cleave (and presumably its Greater counterpart) has zero meaning in relation to Cleaving Finish (and its Greater counterpart), meaning I could in fact, start a Full Attack, kill an enemy, 5-foot, execute the extra Attack, and continue the Full Attack that way.
No, I'm arguing for the rules sake. I have a problem with people having incorrect rules.
A flying archer can attack a melee fighter who couldn't attack back.
It's only a "get out of jail free" if you're first in initiative and you properly guess that they are charging you.
It's "silly" because someone who plans their turn to stop yours if you do one specific thing can stop yours if you do that one specific thing.
No one us forcing you back, there's likely someone who can answer for your view, or it can just die if no one responds. Personally I find it a fine way to spend my time in pointless arguments sometime
I'll happily admit there is a problem with the rules, Byakko, when someone can explain precisely what the problem is.
It seems to me that most people have a bigger problem with the concept of taking a 5-foot step 'during' an attack than they do with readied actions over all.
There is no invincibility glitch, unless your house ruling ends up making one.
for PFS you have tactics given to you, and none of them I've seen "do the ready dance" so GMs really don't have options in PFS to employ this. We've showed how it's often not the best choice, so players "shouldn't want" to use it much. And for PFS people are to random to count on this. I have reach and it's hard enough getting an AoO with that with my teammates charging in.
The problem is time usage.
Most games have a time constraint, especially in society play. Combat can be slow enough as is, without making players delve into the "chess" involved in dealing with these timing issues. Frankly, most players aren't interested in doing so even when time isn't a factor.
Does employing such a tactic really add much to the game experience? Almost never. Usually, this will just result in a slight delay IC as the losing side stalls for a round. OOC, this will typically result in a much longer delay as the players and GM attempt to muddle through issues similar to those brought up in this thread.
Now, there are a few places where it might be fun to use this trick. For example, for comical effect as a goblin cheekily closes a door as a hero is about to full attack them. Or, the players are facing TPK and the swashbuckler uses some trickery to stave off defeat and give the cleric time to work. These cases should be rare, however, as frequent use will only lead to frustration, and frankly is a bad indication of a GM's ability to shut down exploitative shenanigans which detract from play.
I am sympathetic to your concern, but not your solution. I well realize how frustratingly long it is to deal with combat, particularly when someone brings up a tactic that someone else involved isn't aware of. I do not think that the solution is to change the rules, which has only in my experience, led to confusion as certain swaths of the gaming public is working off one iteration and others a newer set of rules. Anytime the rules have to be consulted in game, the game bogs down. If there are differing interpretations once the rules are read, it bogs down further.
Luckily, for a GM who is concerned with the length of combat, the solution is simple...don't employ it. It's not tactically sound or overpowering, and only useful in niche situations, where players continue doing the same thing over and over again. If it is the players who are using the tactic, an OOC "I prefer we don't use this option in the interest of speeding combat along" goes a long way. If they cannot abide by such a gentleman's agreement, simply never perform the triggering action and have them lose their turn over and over again until they come around to your way of thinking.
Again, this isn't a good tactic. It's almost never superior, and it cannot be counted on in any event, unless the DM is readying one NPC against another who the DM will force to follow the script.
What is important is that people understand the rules that can be involved (5-ft step DURING being a big one here) and how they playout, moreso than adjusting orders of resolution, limits on valid triggers, etc.
This is not a new rule, yet even the munchkiniest amongst us do not (generally?) employ it. This surely tells us something.
It was shown that this is usually a poor choice of actions when doing group fighting. since players are most often doing group fighting, as they bring their own group with them, it's usually not even a good idea. And the few times it's a decent option there are other things that players find better or more exciting.
The rules for running away are both more ore less realistic, intuitive, and easily available. Players can know how they work. The rules for readied actions require a chess game when the exact rules only exist in the DM's head. I don't think any two people here have had the exact same idea about how they're supposed to work.
Why is it only possible to take a ready action to >wait< for a specific trigger? "I will walk toward him and if he attacks me, I will attack him first" should be just as relevant.
Why is it only possible to take a ready action to >wait< for a specific trigger? "I will walk toward him and if he attacks me, I will attack him first" should be just as relevant."Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition."
Added more relevance. To be honest, it would've been easier to state that the rules weren't constructed to allow a Readied Action to function that way, and if they were, it would be pointless text, since, if you don't have to wait for a trigger to occur (i.e. it already is happening or whatever), then you might as well should have taken the action regularly instead of allocating a means to attack.
Also, Sissyl, that declaration would consist of a Move Action to get into position, and then a Standard Action to ready an attack based on the condition "If this creature attacks me." The creature could just as easily either attack someone else, or do some other sort of action besides the attack you, and your Readied Action would not trigger (resulting in you essentially wasting your action to ready against something that may or may not happen).
Note that the same is also true in regards to a Kobold with a Reach Weapon readying for when a creature attempts to attack him in melee range.
|
Also, Sissyl, that declaration would consist of a Move Action to get into position, and then a Standard Action to ready an attack based on the condition "If this creature attacks me." The creature could just as easily either attack someone else, or do some other sort of action besides the attack you, and your Readied Action would not trigger (resulting in you essentially wasting your action to ready against something that may or may not happen).
Note that the same is also true in regards to a Kobold with a Reach Weapon readying for when a creature attempts to attack him in melee range.
So the reach fighter's first readied action economy should look like:
Turn 1 PC/Move: Draw weapon
Turn 1 PC/Standard: Ready to 5ft/attack any enemy that stops movement in an adjacent square
Turn 1 BG1: Moves in to attack (PC Op attack)
-- Readied action triggers --
PC 5ft steps and attacks enemy
-- Resume Turn --
Turn 1 BG1: Cannot attack, so closes distance. (Op attack for separate movement action?)
Then resume normal move(provoke or acrobatics), Ready, Op attack economy? You just got two or three (not sure about the second op attack) unanswered attacks. That's not nothing.
It would be super if you could do this over and over, but you can't 5ft in the same round that you also moved (even with a readied action), so it breaks down.
Also, Sissyl, that declaration would consist of a Move Action to get into position, and then a Standard Action to ready an attack based on the condition "If this creature attacks me." The creature could just as easily either attack someone else, or do some other sort of action besides the attack you, and your Readied Action would not trigger (resulting in you essentially wasting your action to ready against something that may or may not happen).
Note that the same is also true in regards to a Kobold with a Reach Weapon readying for when a creature attempts to attack him in melee range.
So the reach fighter's first readied action economy should look like:
Turn 1 PC/Move: Draw weapon
Turn 1 PC/Standard: Ready to 5ft/attack any enemy that stops movement in an adjacent square
Turn 1 BG1: Moves in to attack (PC Op attack)
-- Readied action triggers --
PC 5ft steps and attacks enemy
-- Resume Turn --
Turn 1 BG1: Cannot attack, so closes distance. (Op attack for separate movement action?)Then resume normal move(provoke or acrobatics), Ready, Op attack economy? You just got two or three (not sure about the second op attack) unanswered attacks. That's not nothing.
It would be super if you could do this over and over, but you can't 5ft in the same round that you also moved (even with a readied action), so it breaks down.
If the proxy was "If the enemy is adjacent to me," and the creature is 10-25 feet away, then you would be correct with this argument. But there's one minor detail you forgot, and that's the resetting of capabilities.
If the PC won Initiative and Readied, he would go first again the following round, and 1 full round would have elapsed since his Readied Action went off, meaning he would be able to 5-foot again that round. Remember that it's limited to a per-round basis, and although Attacks of Opportunity are generally refreshed when it becomes the PCs turn again, and not at the start of a round, that rule of thumb isn't broken with the above statements.
So let's try this again: A PC with a Reach Weapon and a Creature with normal 5-foot reach begin ~50 feet apart, with no terrain interfering, and both having 30 feet of movement.
Turn 1: PC wins Initiative. He moves 30 feet as a Move Action, and readies an Attack for when the creature moves adjacent to him as a Standard Action. Creature's turn, he proceeds to move 15 feet, triggering an Attack of Opportunity that misses. He continues moving, putting him adjacent to the PC. The PC's Readied Action triggers, moving 5 feet away and making an attack. This puts the PC above the creature's Initiative (which is technically unchanged, as it's still ahead of the creature anyway), and places him 5 feet away from the creature. Since the creature's movement still isn't done, and wasn't hindered in any means, he can continue his Move Action, moving another 5 feet (he doesn't provoke again as you only provoke once per Move Action for Movement), and can actually make an attack as a Standard Action against the PC.
Turn 2-X: Both sides proceed to Full Attack until one or both parties die.
In this case, the ready would work great if you were adjacent to an ally that the creature was trying to attack, used a Trip Attempt, and forced him to waste his entire round being set up for a Full Attack by both yourself and your other party members. But when they're going adjacent to you for the sole purpose of attacking you (or doing some other proxy that you're prepared for), it's better to ready against that action, as they wouldn't be able to feasibly close the gap afterward, which is where you could do the Readied Actions over and over again until the creature is dead.
If you allow the dancing kobold interpretation.
Mr Pike readies 5 foot step then whack.
Mr Swordsman comes up. Draws Aoo (possible double damage if he charged). Swings. Swing auto misses, gets whacked.
Mr pike readies
Mr swordsman swings, auto misses, gets whacked. Can 5 foot up and use a second attack if they have one.
Mostly it changes the order in which the 5 foot step and the whack come in the dance, which doesn't matter much since weird held action logic makes them interchangeable.