|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was about to post about how unsupported your position is, with all the time take-backing and such when I realized that my position isn't supported by the rules either.
All the rules say is that the guy who was interrupted continues his actions if able to do so.
Whether that means allowing the fighter five more feet on his movement or having an invalid spell fizzle should be up to the GM.
Would love for the readied action rules to be revamped a bit, but in the meantime I say it's a GM call to arbitrate the situation to what makes the most sense.
I was about to post about how unsupported your position is, with all the time take-backing and such when I realized that my position isn't supported by the rules either.
All the rules say is that the guy who was interrupted continues his actions if able to do so.
Whether that means allowing the fighter five more feet on his movement or having an invalid spell fizzle should be up to the GM.
Would love for the readied action rules to be revamped a bit, but in the meantime I say it's a GM call to arbitrate the situation to what makes the most sense.
+1 can't argue with GM rule zero.
+1 can't argue with GM rule zero.
The argument for it is even better when you're filling in blanks without even needing to apply white out.
Thank you ShieldLawrence. It really means something for one's character when they admit they could be wrong.
I also agree that it is vague enough to be interpreted either way, and I would not go so far as to claim my interpretation as the only valid one by RAW. I think both are perfectly valid, and beyond a few "dark side" tactics with some pretty wonky situations I don't think either viewpoint is game-breaking. It's simply another case where the English language can be fairly interpreted to mean more than one thing, and it's really up to GM discretion to keep the game fun.
Interestingly there is rules precedent for the attack that was declared to still be able to hit.
It's not conclusive, but its worth bearing in mind:
Dodging Panache (Ex): At 1st level, when an opponent attempts a melee attack against the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler can as an immediate action spend 1 panache point to move 5 feet; doing so grants the swashbuckler a dodge bonus to AC equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 0) against the triggering attack. This movement doesn't negate the attack, which is still resolved as if the swashbuckler had not moved from the original square. This movement is not a 5-foot step; it provokes attacks of opportunity from creatures other than the one who triggered this deed. The swashbuckler can only perform this deed while wearing light or no armor, and while carrying no heavier than a light load.
Good example of dropping a target on a full attack and changing your target Kayerloth - that is certainly how we play.
Your example is Interesting Obbu. If others were to be believed ogres are better at dodging back because they can ready a 5ft step and step back with no chance of being hit - compared to the swashbuckler who still gets hit and needs a class ability to boot (though I acknowledge this is as a immediate action not ready)
@ Kayerloth: You're misrepresenting when and where the readied action occurs.
If the PC says "I ready a Trip attempt against the next person who performs a melee attack against me," then the Readied Action does not occur until the enemy performs a Standard Action (or Full Attack Action) against the PC. One the Standard Action is taken, you can't just take it back because of a Readied Action. That makes Readied Actions absolutely pointless.
Also, if the enemy performs an Attack or similar Standard Action, your movement ends. Period. End of discussion.
Lol. Thanks for sorting that out Darksol - phew - we were stuck for a moment there...
...
...
...
...
... Except the rules clearly say the trip occurs before the standard action. soooooooooooo. Also your character wouldnt know what a game term like 'standard action' is, so how could he ready against it.
For me he has not finished his move action, it was interrupted by the readied action/trip attempt AoO and that is why I would allow him to continue to move up to his normal limit. He has not made and used his attack action until he actually rolls the dice vs the targets AC. He is not 'committed to anything except what has occurred up to the point at which the foes attack occurs. I would even allow him to move and potential attack a different target or not even use an attack action going forward for the remainder of his turn. Note this is if the player A failed his Trip attempt. Heck while not RAW I'd be tempted to allow Player B to use the remainder of his move action to get back on his feet if he had used less than half his move prior to getting tripped (but I'd have to think about the consequences of that ruling a bit more). As for why do they get to take back and change their minds as to what they are doing ... to keep the stop/go aspect at bay and keep the combat as dynamic as possible for the d20 system. I am allowing the player/character to react as the situation changes in this case to the activity of one of his foes. More or less the same reason if you are using a Full attack you get to switch targets if a foe drops and why the rules allow you to 5 ft step and pick another target ... you get to respond (with GM over sight) to things as they occur during your turn.
House ruling things is fine. The goal here though is to find out what the rules actually are (both RAW and RAI). Doing so then lets a GM do a better job of changing things up if they prefer to run it a little differently.
Also your character wouldnt know what a game term like 'standard action' is, so how could he ready against it.
PC's don't need to know what a standard action is. The readied action is based on 'if I am attacked'. That attack could come from a standard action attack, a full attack (full round action), an AoO, or any other means by which the character is attacking.
Good point. I misread the first section where it said melee attack. That abolutely is a trigger the readying character could recognise.
Lol. Thanks for sorting that out Darksol - phew - we were stuck for a moment there...
...
...
...
...
... Except the rules clearly say the trip occurs before the standard action.
Well yeah, the 5-foot + Trip occurs before the attack is made. So the creature making the attack is attacking an empty square, which may or may not incur a -4 penalty for attacking while prone (being prone doesn't prevent the attack going off). The problem isn't that the creature can't attack. It's that the creature's attack still goes off, and it's effectively wasted because it's attacking an empty square.
So in that respect, I can see how CampinCarl would say the FAQ is irrelevant, as no action is really prevented from the Readied Action, rather wasted by it not affecting the intended creature, but it then steps into a whole different argument that cannot be refuted outside of a different FAQ/Errata being made, or GM FIAT.
Yeah, that seems to be the consensus. That until we know whether that sword swing needs to hit an empty square this won't be resolved.
Some like you say it does. Some like me say it doesn't. Neither side has a specific rule to back it up. It's just interpretation and how you run it in your games.
I actually suspect the FAQ won't make a lot of difference as I suspect groups will continue to use it how they use it. Still would be good to know and this is definitely the most FAQ requests I've seen in a while.
Interestingly there is rules precedent for the attack that was declared to still be able to hit.
It's not conclusive, but its worth bearing in mind:
Dodging Panache (Ex): At 1st level, when an opponent attempts a melee attack against the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler can as an immediate action spend 1 panache point to move 5 feet; doing so grants the swashbuckler a dodge bonus to AC equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 0) against the triggering attack. This movement doesn't negate the attack, which is still resolved as if the swashbuckler had not moved from the original square. This movement is not a 5-foot step; it provokes attacks of opportunity from creatures other than the one who triggered this deed. The swashbuckler can only perform this deed while wearing light or no armor, and while carrying no heavier than a light load.
That's an interesting point, if not strictly relevant. Still, I like it. Thanks for bringing it up.
The main difference is that people tend to be OK with immediate actions interrupting an attack mid-swing to apply an effect. I think you can really sum up people's consternation over this topic as whether a readied action can interrupt an attack, or whether it can simply interrupt an action, but not occur after-swing-but-before-hit.
I personally do not think that readied actions should have the level of immediacy that an immediate action entails: as the alternative is this extremely frustrating form of melee dancing, which wastes everyone's time, and has the potential to cheese some single monster melee encounters completely.
It also allows you to basically dodge bullets with readied actions, using a similar logic - you can still target the character (assuming they don't step behind a wall), but because you are shooting a square they no longer inhabit... you've already started the action, and the shot was targeted at a different location.
Regardless - still needs an FAQ, even if most tables would probably ban it on principle.
@ Kayerloth: You're misrepresenting when and where the readied action occurs.
If the PC says "I ready a Trip attempt against the next person who performs a melee attack against me," then the Readied Action does not occur until the enemy performs a Standard Action (or Full Attack Action) against the PC. One the Standard Action is taken, you can't just take it back because of a Readied Action. That makes Readied Actions absolutely pointless.
Also, if the enemy performs an Attack or similar Standard Action, your movement ends. Period. End of discussion.
Hmmm maybe I am not be clear (or maybe I am doing it wrong), but no I do not believe I am misrepresenting when and where the readied action occurs (or maybe the example is just poor). It occurs right before the action that triggered it. Hardly makes it pointless if your readied attack is successful, the guy will be prone and probably 15ft (or more) away. The difference I'm seeing is when the readied attack whiffs. Which if funny in a way since that's seems to be exactly not what the thread is about since the attack failed and probably didn't prevent anything.
Why should my movement end if the enemy unsuccessfully attacks me while I am moving? Forget about any attack by Player B but are you trying to say if Player B was moving past (and through) a threatened square and a foe (let's call him Player C) attempted to trip him (as an AoO) but failed Player B's movement would be done??? That would certainly make it easier for the trip expert to protect the squishies to the rear. I'm thinking that is not quite what you mean, yes?
House ruling things is fine. The goal here though is to find out what the rules actually are (both RAW and RAI). Doing so then lets a GM do a better job of changing things up if they prefer to run it a little differently.I couldn't agree more, I like to know when I am doing it 'outside' the intended rule (i.e. RAW) and understanding the intent of the rule...
No, here's what I mean:
You have Player A and Player B. Player B has a Reach Weapon, Player A has a standard melee weapon. Both are medium-sized martial characters with no extra mobility outside of their base movement abilities. (i.e. land speed of 30 feet, and that's it). They are 10-30 feet apart. Both are levels 1-5 (don't matter), so they can only perform one attack. The battlefield consists of standard terrain with no obstacles or cover in the way.
Player B wins Initiative. He readies a Trip Attempt against the next creature that tries to attack him. Player A's turn, he decides to move forward and attack Player B. These are the actions that Player A has declared that he will do. They consist of 1. Moving into melee range, and 2. Attacking Player B.
Now, Player B's readied action has the proxy "the next creature that tries to attack him." Player A's activities are split into 2 parts. The first part is the movement, which is a Move Action. Player A successfully moves into a 5-foot melee reach, being missed by Player B's Attack of Opportunity from his Reach Weapon. Once Player A is adjacent to Player B (which is Player A's melee reach), he must now end his movement and Attack, which is a Standard Action. Player A's Attack (i.e. the Standard Action that he spends to attack) fits Player B's readied proxy (as Player A is "the next creature that tries to attack him,") which results in Player B performing the Trip Attempt.
Now, he can carry this out in one of two ways. The first and most obvious way would be to use his Unarmed Strike (i.e. his legs) to trip his enemy. Thankfully, Player B has Improved Trip, so this does not provoke. On the other hand, if Player B did NOT have Improved Trip, he could 5-foot (as he did not move at any point during his turn when he won Initiative) and instead perform the trip with his Reach Weapon, as this clause, per RAW, allows him to do so:
You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.
This clause states that at any point you have not moved and are going to perform, are performing, or have performed an action, you can take a 5-foot step. This applies to Standard Actions, Move Actions, Swift Actions, Full-Round Actions, Free Actions, and Immediate Actions, basically anything that's listed as requiring an Action, per RAW, you could do it. (Keep in mind that I'm not going to include cheese such as "Speaking would allow a 5-foot step outside your turn," as that's obviously not intended, though per RAW, you most certainly could rule that way.)
Back to my example, the 5-foot step entry specifically allows Player B, per RAW, to take a 5-foot step before, during, or after his Readied Standard Action. This means that before his Trip Attempt, he could 5-foot and execute it with his Reach Weapon. Regardless of if the attempt succeeds or fails, if Player B 5-foots outside of Player A's melee reach, Player A's attack would, no matter what, affect a now-empty square, and since he declared that he would make his attack, it becomes a whiff. The only key differences between a successful Trip and a failed one is that a Prone creature has -4 AC against melee attacks, and -4 to all attack rolls. This does, in no way, disallow Player A to attack, unless he is using a Shortbow or Longbow of sorts, so the attack still goes off, and it just affects the square that Player B was once at.
That's it. Them's the breaks. This is precisely how it would be ruled if it was a Spellcaster and a Melee character, and in place of the Trip Attempt, it was a regular Attack, and the proxy is "the next creature that casts a spell." It's anecdotal to the example of a Spellcaster being hit by a Readied Action when casting defensively; he's still required to follow through with the spell, even if the Concentration check when hit fails.
Regardless of if the attempt succeeds or fails, if Player B 5-foots outside of Player A's melee reach, Player A's attack would, no matter what, affect a now-empty square, and since he declared that he would make his attack, it becomes a whiff. The only key differences between a successful Trip and a failed one is that a Prone creature has -4 AC against melee attacks, and -4 to all attack rolls. This does, in no way, disallow Player A to attack, unless he is using a Shortbow or Longbow of sorts, so the attack still goes off, and it just affects the square that Player B was once at.
That's it. Them's the breaks. This is precisely how it would be ruled if it was a Spellcaster and a Melee character, and in place of the Trip Attempt, it was a regular Attack, and the proxy is "the next creature that casts a spell." It's anecdotal to the example of a Spellcaster being hit by a Readied Action when casting defensively; he's still required to follow through with the spell, even if the Concentration check when hit fails.
I was right with you up to the last two paragraphs. The interpretation we take is that Player A's attack hasnt happened yet as the trip and five foot step went first. As such player A has so far only moved five foot. He still has a move equivilent action and standard action to use. Alternatively he can continue moving the remaining 25 ft of his move. This could either be crawling along the ground if tripped or moving normally.
It has been repeated several times now, that spellcasting has been singled out as an action that can be triggered mid way through by the trigger “if she starts casting a spell.” Not if she casts a spell.
You are completely missing the point of the thread and so that isn't it, and them's arent the breaks. You can choose to interpret that way in your games. But please don't suggest it is a done deal - the 45+ FAQ requests show that it isn't.
We had a thread on jumping that had tons of faqs. I think there was three or five people against the rest of the boards over how it worked. So just because there are faqs doesn't mean there's not a clear answer in the rules or that there's a lot of differing ideas
Regardless of if the attempt succeeds or fails, if Player B 5-foots outside of Player A's melee reach, Player A's attack would, no matter what, affect a now-empty square, and since he declared that he would make his attack, it becomes a whiff. The only key differences between a successful Trip and a failed one is that a Prone creature has -4 AC against melee attacks, and -4 to all attack rolls. This does, in no way, disallow Player A to attack, unless he is using a Shortbow or Longbow of sorts, so the attack still goes off, and it just affects the square that Player B was once at.
That's it. Them's the breaks. This is precisely how it would be ruled if it was a Spellcaster and a Melee character, and in place of the Trip Attempt, it was a regular Attack, and the proxy is "the next creature that casts a spell." It's anecdotal to the example of a Spellcaster being hit by a Readied Action when casting defensively; he's still required to follow through with the spell, even if the Concentration check when hit fails.
I was right with you up to the last two paragraphs. The interpretation we take is that Player A's attack hasnt happened yet as the trip and five foot step went first. As such player A has so far only moved five foot. He still has a move equivilent action and standard action to use. Alternatively he can continue moving the remaining 25 ft of his move. This could either be crawling along the ground if tripped or moving normally.
It has been repeated several times now, that spellcasting has been singled out as an action that can be triggered mid way through by the trigger “if she starts casting a spell.” Not if she casts a spell.
You are completely missing the point of the thread and so that isn't it, and them's arent the breaks. You can choose to interpret that way in your games. But please don't suggest it is a done deal - the 45+ FAQ requests show that it isn't.
If the argument is that Player A's action hasn't happened yet, then the Readied Action would have never triggered. You missed my point of "It doesn't happen until it happens." The proxy set was "the next creature that tries to attack him." If he moves up to him (which you obviously didn't read that I stated it took a Move Action to do) and declares to attack, then he spends the Standard Action to try and attack him, that means he committed his Standard Action, which is what results the Readied Action to trigger.
I'm not missing anything. Just because the Readied Action occurs right before the declared events of the non-readied player doesn't mean the future events do not cease to happen, especially when, as declared by the Trip attempt, the attack is still valid to take.
You're essentially giving Player A a free Standard Action because he spent one to attack the creature, which was required in order for the Readied Action to trigger that made him effectively waste his original one. I mean, that's being a generous GM, but being generous as a GM is not a proper demonstration of RAW (even if it's highly recommended to be generous like that).
That may be your interpretation of the rules - but there are a substantial number of people on this thread who either disagree or are unsure as evidenced by the previous posts.
In normal circumstances it doesn't make any difference hence it not being properly explained in the rules. It only comes up because some people seem to think it is acceptable to use the ready action to become invulnerable to an enemies melee attacks for one or more rounds. As has been said by others several times across the thread - that is very very silly!
That may be your interpretation of the rules - but there are a substantial number of people on this thread who either disagree or are unsure as evidenced by the previous posts.
In normal circumstances it doesn't make any difference hence it not being properly explained in the rules. It only comes up because some people seem to think it is acceptable to use the ready action to become invulnerable to an enemies melee attacks for one or more rounds. As has been said by others several times across the thread - that is very very silly!
It's the RAW interpretation, not my own interpretation. They're free to disagree with that interpretation on grounds of RAI, and I'd probably be in agreement with their disagreement. But that doesn't mean I no longer value what the rules are stating. If I wanted to do something like that, that's what homebrewing is for, and there's a whole sub-forum for that. The question is posing what the rules state in regards to that. If the FAQ comes through and Paizo gives us a different answer, then I'll conform to that interpretation being RAW (and RAI). Until that happens, the RAW interpretation otherwise remains intact.
As for the combination, it's not invulnerable. Difficult to beat, sure, but not impenetrable. In my example, if Player A had the Step Up and Strike feat chain, Player B would be suffering up to 2 additional attacks with that readied action before even making the readied Trip attempt. If Player B didn't have the Improved Trip feat (he should, but if he were level 1 or 2, he probably wouldn't), he would provoke for doing that maneuver, and if he attempted to 5-foot away to use his Reach Weapon, Player A would move with Player B, and get a free attack out of it (still potentially ruining Player A's readied attempt).
Player A could instead be a Ranged expert and just pluck away at him with a Longbow until Player B goes splat. Player A could also just be a Spellcaster and use spells like Color Spray to render Player B's threats absolutely worthless. Queue the Coup de Grace, and you have a defeated Reach Martial. There are many means to counter it. Just because it's extremely powerful in one instance doesn't mean it's extremely powerful in every other instance.
Lol, keep repeating yourself. It doesnt make it true. If it was rules as written we wouldn't be having this conversation. The point is - no where does it say that the readied action stops the character getting his remaining actions. Remaining being actions not yet taken. The standard action hasn't happened yet.
Your attempt to justify the ridiculous by saying it can be overcome by specialising in ranged combat or taking Step Up and Strike only highlights just how ridiculous it is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's the RAW interpretation, not my own interpretation.
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
Lol, keep repeating yourself. It doesnt make it true. If it was rules as written we wouldn't be having this conversation. The point is - no where does it say that the readied action stops the character getting his remaining actions. Remaining being actions not yet taken. The standard action hasn't happened yet.
Your attempt to justify the ridiculous by saying it can be overcome by specialising in ranged combat or taking Step Up and Strike only highlights just how ridiculous it is.
If the Standard Action "didn't happen", then the Standard Action wasn't taken, which means the Readied Action would not trigger, which means that nothing happens. Last I checked, Readied Actions are entirely intended to work in proxy of when a creature does a specific activity, whether it requires an action or not. That's exactly what they were designed to do; if they weren't designed for that, then why would they include specific texts and triggers that work specifically for those purposes?
You can't just spend an action and then renege out of the action you spent (which is required in order for the Readied Action to trigger) because you found out that he was readied to essentially nullify your activities. That's meta-gaming, and I can assure you that if a player does that, he won't be at that table for long, and if a GM does that, you won't find many players willing to play at his table, and that's precisely what you're proposing should happen.
You said that it was "invulnerable." I proved it otherwise. Whether it's ridiculous or not is in the eye of the beholder. And I didn't disagree in saying that it was difficult and a little difficult to overcome, but it can be overcome.
@ The Mortonator: You're doin' it wrong.
@ The Mortonator: You're doin' it wrong.
Are we really just using whatever memes come to mind now? Being subject to interpretation means is that there is that there exists no defined correct answer. You can't just end debate because you feel right.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's more "the one true raw" than sparticus.
Please stand up
Please stand up...
@ The Mortonator: You're doin' it wrong.Are we really just using whatever memes come to mind now? Being subject to interpretation means is that there is that there exists no defined correct answer. You can't just end debate because you feel right.
Maybe. I used it because I don't know if you mean "RAW" or "Interpretation".
To be fair though, RAW is an acronym, not exactly a word.
.Interpretation is something you have to do for Rules as Written. Interpretation is translating the words of the rule to the situation at the table. Therefore when you say the RAW interpretation or Your Interpretation you mean your interpretation of the Rules as Written. They are the same thing.
Darksol. All the arguments you're making have already be discussed on this thread. It really is pointless to keep repeating them. Go back and read.
I get that you don't agree, and think the ready action can shut down other characters action economy. I don't, it just interrupts their actions with a pre-determined activity and forces them to change what they are doing.
A character cannot avoid a charge from an enemy by taking a five foot step back. The fact that you are arguing they can bemuses me... It is very strange.
I get that you don't agree, and think the ready action can shut down other characters action economy. I don't, it just interrupts their actions with a pre-determined activity and forces them to change what they are doing.
So then readying to attack an enemy that's casting a spell in hopes of interrupting them just allows them to do something besides casting a spell. So, instead of casting one spell, I can cast another spell, the very same spell that they readied against if I want to, and not lose any slots for their readied action, or lose my spell.
Cool.
So all their readied action just did was time it to a certain point in the initiative, even though it would've done the same exact thing if they just took it when they could have in the first place, meaning it did absolutely nothing different than if they just did it when it was their turn in the initiative order to begin with.
That interpretation goes against the intent that's already been demonstrated in written examples and options listed by readied actions, and absolutely destroys the need for readying actions in the first place, when the need to ready an action does absolutely nothing different than just simply taking the action when you could have in the first place.
So then according to your interpretation, why is "Ready an Action" even in the book, if it's absolutely no different than just taking the action in the first place?
No, as I have now said four times - spell casting is singled out as something you can ready against afterthe spellcasting starts. As opposed to other ready actions that take place before.
No the ready action can interrupt the normal order - you can interrupt during the other persons turn, at any point between actions, during movement. You can't do that with a normal delay.
Can you give an example of a ready action in the rules that does what you claim?
A ready action is there to interrupt the normal order and allow a person to time a standard actions and maybe 5ft step to occur pre-emptively before an opponent takes an actions. Attack the guard before he shouts, disarm the person before the attack, attack the enemy when they charge you. It isn't there to stop the opponent getting to take actions on their rounds - unless the readied action is a spell or action that incapacitates/prevents them taking the action.
You are completely inferring into the system that enemy loses their action - nowhere that I have seen does it say that, except the FAQ where it specifically mentions hold person or paralysation.
I think it's time to agree to disagree and step away from the conversation. Nobody is getting anywhere.
|
|
If the rules specifically mention being able to force a concentration check with a readied attack, why would it be different for other readied actions? Technically, the readied attack happens before spell casting happens, but it counts as interrupting the spell with damage.
As a GM, I still lean toward allowing a change-of-action if something was invalidated, such as from a readied attack-5ft-step. But to allow the same for a caster getting hit with an arrow would be strictly against RAW.
Darksol is stating the right answer. how haste stacks with divine fervor, or jumping a pit. Just because people couldn't agree, or didn't like the correct answer didn't mean that a good portion if the posters had the correct answer. For darksol to be "proven wrong" by the faq they'll need to change or add wording so the rule works as interned instead of how they work right now. Nothing in the game supports the "take back" view that you can change your action after an interrupt.
Like according to the other side they get to change their action if you:
Ready to sunder a potion if the go to drink it. Since the potion is now broke they can change their action and drink the potion in their other hand or attack you. Since drinking that potion is now impossible and it happens before they start their action.
Ready to sunder a bow for a ranged attack.
Ready to trip when they stand up is curious. Have they stood up before the move action ends? If so then you can't trip them since you'd be hitting then when they were still prone.
I feel it's clear your side view is wrong since your trying to discredit people who have this view, calling this view silly or an exploitation of a turned based system, when it's clear it's less confusing and less abuse of the system then saying that the standard action hasn't happened even though they started a standard action
No, as I have now said four times - spell casting is singled out as something you can ready against afterthe spellcasting starts. As opposed to other ready actions that take place before.
Distracting SpellcastersYou 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 Spellcraft check result).
Nothing in there is any different than attacking. Would you say a trigger "if I am attacked" is somehow different than "if someone starts attacking me"? Those are functionally the same in the English language. How has someone attacked me, if they didn't first start to attack me?
With spells it is the same. "If someone casts a spell" is identical in function to "if someone starts casting a spell". Furthermore, it doesn't make any distinction about how the readied action is handled. It doesn't say anything like "in this case you can't choose to take a different action". With no change, the readied action still occurs before the triggering action and would still follow the same rules - either you get the option to choose a new action, or you don't. Rules work as they work unless a specific rule overrides it. Nothing there overrides how the readied action is resolved before the triggering action.
The only thing explicitly called out as a change is that the caster loses the spell if they fail the concentration check. Casting that spell therefore is now an invalid action. So do they get to choose a different action or not?
Now its clear to me, that no, they don't get to choose to do something else instead of casting a spell. They lost their action. Likewise a creature that moves any distance, then comes through a door and gets hit with a hold person, has lost their move action despite casting hold person before their action not even being possible. These precedents also show how to handle all other cases of readied actions (IMO) regarding invalidating an action. The action is lost.
From what the book says it takes a standard action to ready the action. Then at some point the ready action is executed.
Since you have to spend a standard action to ready the _____ action, the standard action has already been used.
The book gives you no room to back out of that readied action.
You don't get to back out of actions once they are taken. The readied action is not an exception to that.
The problem here is that people think that readying the action does not itself use an action in and of itself so that standard action is still available for whatever they need it for later on. However, the standard action is used as soon as you declare your readied action. The "act" which you have decided to use your action for has not occured, but not performing the act that does give you a "take back" on the act or the action.
This was the same issue people had when they thought that using a ranged touch attack spell only provoked once. They had trouble separating the acts(casting and firing) from the action(game term).
wraithstrike
You've misunderstood the conversation. Its not a question of getting the standard used to ready back. The question is: the person triggering the readied action (e.g, player B, not player A who readied an action), can they choose to do something else with their action that resulted in the trigger?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The examples in the Core rulebook (203) distracting spellcaster, counterspelling, and brace weapons vs charge do not show any option for taking another action. The readied action and the trigger are, in the examples, glued together. The short answer is surely no, otherwise there is no point to a readied action. I guess the real discussion is what happens when the action-readied-against is no longer a possible action. But most of the discussion seems to focus on poorly worded readied actions, in which case the action should be lost. More complicated ready actions should actually be delay actions. IMHO.
wraithstrike
You've misunderstood the conversation. Its not a question of getting the standard used to ready back. The question is: the person triggering the readied action (e.g, player B, not player A who readied an action), can they choose to do something else with their action that resulted in the trigger?
My fault. I should not have skipped post.
I think that once you declare the action you are stuck with it, but the rules do not come right not and say that. I really do wish the devs would have say the ready action interrupted the action, like immediate actions do, instead of saying it came before the trigger. I never really understood why it was worded that way.|
|
wraithstrike
You've misunderstood the conversation. Its not a question of getting the standard used to ready back. The question is: the person triggering the readied action (e.g, player B, not player A who readied an action), can they choose to do something else with their action that resulted in the trigger?
My fault. I should not have skipped post.
I think that once you declare the action you are stuck with it, but the rules do not come right not and say that. I really do wish the devs would have say the ready action interrupted the action, like immediate actions do, instead of saying it came before the trigger. I never really understood why it was worded that way.
Yeah, a lot of problems would be solved if they said the readied action "resolves" before the triggering action instead of "occurs" before it. One word makes a difference.
The same people are saying it is one way as the other group say the other way as it has been for144. At this point I don't care anymore.
As always it wouldn't be a problem if some people didn't think it was clever to try and break the game by twisting the rules by abusing a necessary convention in the rules to have an action both triggered by something and act before it. The invulnerable charge ward that lets you stand in someone's way and avoid their attack simply by stepping back.
i don't need the rules to perfect models every reality in the game. I just need them to stop abuse. If you set the triggering action is attack me if I blink, the rules say you could attack me before I blink. I'm okay with this it is a minor inconsistency. I have a promlem when this contradiction creates a silly situation, like defeating the charge above.
If the FAQ fixes this then I am fine with it.
Anyway the same people are posting the same things. So as Campin Carl says stepping away now.
Happy Christmas.
one only hopes that by repeating the correct answer enough times others may finally adapt and comes to terms with the answer.
one answer includes take backsies and time paradoxes, and the other rewards a character for playing smart against an opponent.
No take back, no paradoxes, the action hasn't happened. I have no issue with you putting forward a rules based argument but picking wholes in another argument that aren't there is a poor show.
ROFL: taking a 5ft back is playing smart? Ha ha
You've repeatedly said that you'd let them change what they had done and were doing.
Alternatively he can continue moving the remaining 25 ft of his move.
The fighter would just move the extra 5ft assuming he had the movement left
if the attacker declared a 5ft move and full attack I would allow the attacker to change this to a normal move and standard attack
Readied action if someone appears to be about to attack me. You act before and the attacker gets to do something else.
You have it that if someone had moved to you and stared to attack you they could instead move some more and attack again because of a readied action.
You have it so if they took a 5ft step and started to attack that they could change that to a normal move action and attack because of opponents readied action.You'd let someone start to attack A and then because of readied action, let them do anything they wanted to in place of that attack that they started.
All of those are take backs. You're letting them go back and change what they've done.
Also the paradoxes is that A does something if B starts to attack A. B starts to attack A, so A does something, but then you say that B never actually started to attack A, well if B never started to attack A then A never did something, but then if A didn't do something they why wouldn't B do the attack like he was going to do?
All of this is abuse of the turn based rules.
And a 5ft step isn't the smart part, it's the readied action that keeps you alive for an extra round. The part that you think is "Silly" but that lets them negate someone else's plan. That is smart play.
If they decide to change the rules to limit what you can do with a readied action so be it. I kinda think they will, because it seems that much of what is currently the rules wasn't what they wanted it to be and they're changing all sorts of stuff. So I wouldn't be surprised if readied actions aren't working like they wanted them to.
But until they issue a FAQ that changes the rules the rules are what they are. We don't have anything to give us some sort of RAI, so we're left with the rules. Rules that don't support changing actions after you started an action.