Just one more time - for the record - As Campin Carl, I and others have argued all along. The action hasn't happened yet, the action hasn't started, the trigger happens before the action. We are each looking at a different sentence and ascribing more Weight to it. You know my opinion I know yours. Please don't misrepresent what I am saying though.
Not that anyone is paying attention. But the Core (203) examples of readied actions and trigger action are closely glued together, spellcasting plus interrupting attack, ready reach weapon vs charge, counterspell vs spell. The intent is clearly that the trigger action cannot be changed. Also it seems likely that anybody performing those actions would already know how they might be countered. It shouldn't be a surprise that another spellcaster might counterspell, or someone within 5' range might interrupt your spell, or if you charge a guy with a pike he might use it to defend himself. Sure, you can push the language of saying the trigger action comes first, take back your charge, take back starting casting a spell, but it is surely against the intent of these "special initiative actions." The combat round is intended to emulate something, i.e. combat, in which things happen at the same time. No take-backs. In combat and in one on one sports, it is not uncommon for both sides (in game terms) to use readied actions and delay actions. They dance around or stand around waiting for the other side to commit to an action.
Counter spell and spell interuption are separately detailed as instances where the interruption action happens during the triggering spell rather than before - if you read the text.
A charge action is a single full round (or standard) action that involves move and attack - it has already begun hence not being able to change it.
Imagine now if not only you were able to ready the attack on the brace, but also get you attack of opportunity for a reach weapons and here's the kicker - take a five foot step back and invalidate the whole premise of the charge. Hmmm
I'm cool with the 'everything happens simultaneously' idea. In which case the step shouldn't allow you to avoid the enemy attack/full attack.
I still don't believe your interpretation is RAW.
However, all the arguing shows the developers that clarification is needed.
Any interpretation that is ridiculous - such as allowing you to negate a charge by doing a 5' step, should be changed. Otherwise, you are playing a system that doesn't remotely represent real life.
You're right, it's not real life, that's representative of a cartoon demonstrating a bull that is usually tricked by a brash young gentleman using a crimson cape who readies himself to avoid its charge.
That's totally not remotely represented in real life in some sort of fashion.
You know you're running out of arguments against something when you try to pull the Real Life card, and it doesn't even make sense.
I think of you go back through the posts Darksol, you will see everyone - including you and me - is just using the same arguments, over and over again.
Just one more time - for the record - As Campin Carl, I and others have argued all along. The action hasn't happened yet, the action hasn't started, the trigger happens before the action. We are each looking at a different sentence and ascribing more Weight to it. You know my opinion I know yours. Please don't misrepresent what I am saying though.
Just because you refuse to acknowledge how you're handling the situation doesn't make it untrue. My trigger is you starting to attack me. MY ACTION may happen before your action, but my trigger was you starting to attack me. Now you can say that it's not a valid thing to ready for and that's a different argument. But if you allow someone to ready for when they are swinging at me, then they have started to swing at me, as that is the trigger for when my action happens.
Otherwise you're saying that characters are guess that they're going to attack me but then they didn't, so my readied action doesn't happen.My interpretation is that if your action is invalidated by a readied action, you can do anything else that you want to.
they can use their standard action to do something else now that what they were trying to do is impossible.
Both of these show a character was doing something (attacking the readied character) and now their getting to do something else. AKA, changing their mind and getting a take back.
So please, one more time, explain how someone who hasn't started attacking me yet has triggered my readied action of them starting to attack me. Also explain why my readied action is used if they never do the triggering action. Also, for the record, would you allow someone to cast a spell for their standard action after your readied action goes off?
and if I was fixing the issue I'd say that it all works right now how it works. That you continue the action that triggered the interrupt if you're able to, and if you're not then you don't.
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.
While I can't speak for others, you are assuming a motive here that doesn't exist, for my part.
My motive is: Understand what the RAW actually is. If that doesn't match RAI lets get the RAW fixed. With both of those now understood and clarified, a GM can now alter things if he/she feels it should function differently.
As I said up thread, I don't think the 5' step to avoid an attack is a real issue. It is useless in group play, and is a pretty rare thing to have happen in the vast majority of games. Other examples, like the sundered potion, are more of the issue in my mind.
Readying a 5' step to negate a charge has nothing to do with fantasy. It has to do with the fact that a turn based system has a flaw that can be exploited.I still don't believe your interpretation is RAW.
However, all the arguing shows the developers that clarification is needed.
Any interpretation that is ridiculous - such as allowing you to negate a charge by doing a 5' step, should be changed. Otherwise, you are playing a system that doesn't remotely represent real life.
You're right, it's not real life, that's representative of a cartoon demonstrating a bull that is usually tricked by a brash young gentleman using a crimson cape who readies himself to avoid its charge.
That's totally not remotely represented in real life in some sort of fashion.
You know you're running out of arguments against something when you try to pull the Real Life card, and it doesn't even make sense.
If that's the case, then why did you even bother to bring up a straw-man argument of such a thing not being remotely representative of real life, whereas several fantasy tropes based on a realistic world (such as ours), involve those very same elements that the RAW describes?
@ The Sword: I'm still using the RAW argument because it hasn't been refuted. Chess Pwn shares that argument, and I couldn't have said what he stated any better: The fact is, in order to start an attack, I have to spend a Standard Action. If I don't spend a Standard Action, then I don't start an attack, meaning no Readied Action goes off. I'm sure we can both agree that's how it works, right?
So, with that established, this essentially means you can't have your cake (the Standard Action required to start the proxy) and eat it too (exhaust the Readied Action in response to the proxy). It's paradoxical to allow a creature to activate on a proxy that an enemy hasn't even started yet, and in order to start an attack, you have to spend an action to do so.
The faq is irrelevant. The FAQ is what happens if I lose actions, ready still specifically calls out my actions as being there to take if possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point of the FAQ is that interrupting effects occur first, and can cancel actions. The full-attack action example is directly on point. If an interrupting event prevents a full-attack, you aren't allowed to go back and switch your actions, you've already spent the full-attack, and thus you've lost both your standard action and move action. The FAQ even specifically states that the normal conversion of full-attack to attack plus move is disallowed.
That is nowhere to be found in the FAQ.
The conversion of a full attack plus move isn't allowed because you don't have a move action to spend anymore Having your actions reduced mid round takes those actions out of your action economy. Being interrupted by a readied action specifically does not.
Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action.
If the person you struck isn't dead, staggered, paralyzed, staggered etc. and hasn't attacked then they still have their actions. There is no comparison between something that reduces your allowed actions and something that does not.
Yes, even if it interrupts or limits your in-progress.
For example, if you are making a full attack and attempt to trip your opponent, but you provoke an AOO because you don't have Improved Trip, and your opponent has a spell storing weapon that's storing a hold person, and you fail your save against the spell, you are immediately paralyzed and can't take any of your remaining actions (including the remainder of your full attack).
Likewise, if your opponent had the Staggering Critical feat instead of a spell storing weapon and the attack staggered you, you would immediately gain the staggered condition, which would prevent you from taking any actions that violate the staggered condition's limitations. If you provoked by taking a move action to move through the opponent's threatened area, you could finish that move action but could not also take a standard action after it. If you provoked as part of a full attack (as with the trip example), becoming staggered would end your full attack at that point and prevent you from taking a move action after the staggering attack. It doesn't matter if the AOO happened because of your first attack in your full attack or your last allowed one, being staggered ends your full attack at that point because you can't make a full attack if you're staggered.
|
The rules are vague. I plan on going by the in-text examples, which suggest that the action isn't take-backable. When you announce your action, and it happens to be the trigger, it will still happen after the ready, as is what happens in the in-text examples.
Up for debate, sure, but it isn't getting us anywhere and no one will be able to prove which side is RAW.
Rules as Written as Interpreted by the GM is the best we will likely get.
This is a game, not reality, so we must play be the rules, not what would happen in the real world.
When the rules are vague and unclear, like they certainly are here, realism is certainly one of the things you can use to adjudicate the action. Realism, fairness, and workability, are all things to take into account when a rule can be read more than one way or leads to abject silliness that makes the game unplayable.
right so realism is that if someone where to move after you started swinging at them you wouldn't get to stop that swing and do whatever else you wanted to do.
Good thing realism is on our side too.
This is a game, not reality, so we must play be the rules, not what would happen in the real world.When the rules are vague and unclear, like they certainly are here, realism is certainly one of the things you can use to adjudicate the action. Realism, fairness, and workability, are all things to take into account when a rule can be read more than one way or leads to abject silliness that makes the game unplayable.
If they are rules you just do not like, that doesn't equate to rules being "vague or unclear", especially when there is precedent for it. By that logic, 9th level spellcasters, Sno-Cone Wish Machines, and Summon Spells should be "FAQ'd" because they're "vague or unclear".
I can assure you the biggest reason this "question" has so many FAQs is because players find the combination overpowered and are seeking to get it nerfed. It's the Crane Style feat chain all over again, except it doesn't take a specific 1 or 2 level dip to get, being used at a level where it obviously wasn't designed to be used at.
Should it be nerfed? Probably. It gives Reach Weapons (or Reach in general) an unneeded power advantage over normal weaponry (or those with smaller reach), and the only ways to counter it are to either match it, go some niche feat chains, specialize in other means of attack, or become two or more sizes larger than the target in question, and even that may not be an option (see Toppling Spell). But it's by no means an extreme disparity, such as comparing a Fighter to a Wizard. (Just bringing it up as an example, no need to further discuss that here...)
Can it be nerfed? It's a delicate process, not unlike the Crane Style feat chain, where a certain change would have unwarranted and catastrophic results if not checked over. If we nerfed it the way The Sword has proposed, it gives Readied Actions absolutely no meaning outside of what's written, and even that's sketchy since the precedent and the mechanics for Readied Actions have changed beyond the scope of what's written (i.e. it becomes Crane Riposte). If we nerfed it to where 5-foot steps only apply on your turn unless otherwise told (i.e. Step Up and Strike feat chain), there can still be an argument for this to still be legal (and as a result nothing really changes). But if we nerfed it to where it would not apply to Readied Actions, then you would have a means to maintain the primary function of Readied Actions without providing an unwarranted power boost to creatures with an excess amount of Reach.
Lastly, When will it be nerfed? If and when the Devs decide to issue a FAQ/Errata. Until then, the RAW is clear, and I've said about all that I need to say in this thread. I'll (try to) bow out until Pathfinder Design Team posts an official answer to the proposed "FAQ".
right so realism is that if someone where to move after you started swinging at them you wouldn't get to stop that swing and do whatever else you wanted to do.
Good thing realism is on our side too.
Realism would be that they might not be able to swing at me and still dodge out of the way in time. I might hit them and I might not. This mechanic is covered by the to hit and AC rules that occupy a good chunk of the game, class abiliies, weapons, magic item abilitie, and the random luck of the attack roll around which the game is built.
That you can automatically attack and dodge, regardless of the relative skills or abilities between them is whats not realistic. A 1st level peasant with a dex of 3 is just as good at getting out of the way by this method as a 10th level swashbuckler with the grace of a jungle cat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two people only armed with swords, both with 30' of movement, in a duel in an empty arena. One readies an action to attack and 5 foot step when attacked.
Sixteen hours later, the only attack launched was that first triggered one. Since then, both have been staring at one another, readied actions prepared but never used.
No. That is just stupid. RAW or not. It is a glitch in the system, if anything. It is not even intended to represent dodging either. That is using the full defense action.
Regarding spellcasting, the point of readying an action to hit someone who tries to cast a spell is that it's the only way to manage to hit them so you can prevent their spell from going off, even if they are casting defensively. Neither hitting them before or after the spell will change anything.
A wild guess would put MOST physical conflicts in any given game world at two melee combatants duking it out. Any rule that prevents an attacker, 100%, from landing a blow WHILE LETTING THE DEFENDER GET ONE, will make it a world where no physical conflict happens. Reforge your swords, boys. Take care of the starving (and harmless) owlbears. Tell the bandits to go home. If you want a system glitch, you want it to favour the attacker. That, at least, makes for a dynamic situation.
I would say that readied actions are fine if used only for timing purposes. They still add something, and are useful even with nothing else. The simplest fix I can see is just to let someone move attacking keep doing that if they have move to spare. It may not be RAW, but it solves the problem nicely. It doesn't even allow them to change any intended and declared actions, merely adds a tiny bit of flexibility to where they move. Just as we don't demand that the defender readying an action should say "I ready an action to attack goblin #43 if he should attack me with the short sword he's holding from the square directly to my left", maybe we shouldn't demand the attacker to say "I attack the square goblin #43 is standing in right now, unless he manages to attack me with a ready action"?
Finally, I should add that this is not an argument against anything that would put the attacker out of a way to attack. If the defender can paralyze, stun, or otherwise remove the attacker's ability to attack, that is fine and a good use of combat options.
Totally agree with Sissyl.
I would add that readied actions need DM adjudication to determine what is the likely effect of the readied action is. Then the vast majority of triggers can go off and only the small number of dumb ones that break the system need be worried about. This will upset those people who see the DM as the enemy, but should be fine for the rest of us.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sissyl, those are some particularly brain-dead fighters if that's all they can think to do.
The second fighter can just walk up to the other fighter (get hit), then continue his movement and make his own attack. Granted, he's going to get hit first, but y'know, he did lose initiative.
Now if he had a shred of cleverness, he'd note that that the other fighter didn't take an action on his turn and looks to be prepared to strike (perhaps with a sense motive check). Let's say he can't risk getting hit. Okay, how about making an intimidate check instead? Opting to do something other than approach the other guy. Or heck, pull out his ranged weapon and attack with it. If he doesn't have one (seriously?), pick up that rock and throw it as an improvised weapon. Sooner or later, the other guy's going to get tired of being pelted with rocks.
In most actual combat situations, one or both sides will have more pressing concerns and objectives and can't afford to simply wait. Nor do fights typically happen in a vacuum with combatants possessing so few options. But you know what? It's actually entirely realistic for two well armed foes to be unwilling to approach each other if doing so would put them at risk (imagine two people with guns, both behind cover... yeah, neither is going to willingly break cover and get shot).
Agreed. However, people are actually arguing that if the second fighter goes up and attacks the first, the first will attack then move five feet away. The second fighter will then be unable to attack at all because the first is now not adjacent. This state of things is obviously idiotic. If it is RAW, RAW is idiotic. It wouldn't be the first time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sissyl, those are some particularly brain-dead fighters if that's all they can think to do.
The second fighter can just walk up to the other fighter (get hit), then continue his movement and make his own attack. Granted, he's going to get hit first, but y'know, he did lose initiative.
Now if he had a shred of cleverness, he'd note that that the other fighter didn't take an action on his turn and looks to be prepared to strike (perhaps with a sense motive check). Let's say he can't risk getting hit. Okay, how about making an intimidate check instead? Opting to do something other than approach the other guy. Or heck, pull out his ranged weapon and attack with it. If he doesn't have one (seriously?), pick up that rock and throw it as an improvised weapon. Sooner or later, the other guy's going to get tired of being pelted with rocks.
In most actual combat situations, one or both sides will have more pressing concerns and objectives and can't afford to simply wait. Nor do fights typically happen in a vacuum with combatants possessing so few options. But you know what? It's actually entirely realistic for two well armed foes to be unwilling to approach each other if doing so would put them at risk (imagine two people with guns, both behind cover... yeah, neither is going to willingly break cover and get shot).
And an intimidate check helps him how?
So the two handed weapon wielder now needs to use a bow to kill the guy standing 5ft in front of him?The continuing attempts to justify this as reasonable are amazing.
Let's be clear - there is no mechanic that lets any other player know what the DMs creatures are doing or thinking, other than experience. If I was a DM and handwaved that NPCs pre-emptied PCs readied actions that would be really poor for players. Replace fighter with a critter and it gets even more silly.
If PFS GMs ran readied actions this way (just have all mook npcs ready actions to attack and then take a 5' step away), I guarantee that Paizo would change the rule within a month.
The only reason it hasn't been changed is that most people ignore that exploit.
Or, you know, most people don't think its the rule?
Sixteen hours later, the only attack launched was that first triggered one. Since then, both have been staring at one another, readied actions prepared but never used.
Having a different view point is fine. But it would be really nice if this did not keep getting brought up. If those talking about the immortal kobold and the like would actually take the time to understand how to shut this down you'd realize this is a complete non-issue. Its an extra one turn of survival - stop exaggerating it.
I get that some people don't even like that one turn delay for those rare one-on-one combats. But its still a single turn (not a hour+ stalemate). Come up with a real argument about why this is unbalanced or wrong (I'd probably even agree with some of that reasoning).
Any rule that prevents an attacker, 100%, from landing a blow WHILE LETTING THE DEFENDER GET ONE...
This is the sort of thing I could get behind. I think the RAW of readied actions currently allows it, but that very well may not be the RAI - hence the FAQ request.
If those talking about the immortal kobold and the like would actually take the time to understand how to shut this down you'd realize this is a complete non-issue.
Show. Don't tell. kill the kobold
Step 1 . Kobald readies attack if attacked
Step 2. Flighter moves 25 ft declares about to attack
Step 3. Kobald interrupts turn sequence - attacks fighter, moves 5ft bac,
Step 4. Fighter can't complete attack (according to you) so forfeits action.
Next round
Step 5. Kobald takes a move action to move 10 ft away and readies attack if attacked
Step 6. Fighter does what????
How can the fighter kill the kobald with a sword - apart from readying his own action - which in and of itself solves nothing.
If their is a solution bbangerter please help...
Step 1 . Kobald readies attack if attacked
Step 2. Flighter moves 25 ft declares about to attack
Step 3. Kobald interrupts turn sequence - attacks fighter, moves 5ft bac,
Step 4. Fighter can't complete attack (according to you) so forfeits action.
Next round
Step 5. Kobald takes a move action to move 10 ft away and readies attack if attacked
Step 6. Fighter does what????How can the fighter kill the kobald with a sword - apart from readying his own action - which in and of itself solves nothing.
Why did you stop there? You are on the right both. The kobold dies next turn.
Sword, that kobolds easy to kill, he's moved 10 feet so the fighter can move up and swing or charge
Can we please drop this topic? It's just people slamming their heads against each other when nobody is changing their mind.
Step 6. Fighter moves 15ft and starts to attack
Step 7. Kobald takes readied action and attacks then moves 5 ft away
step 8. Fighter finishes attack but can't complete so loses action
Step 9. Kobald steps 10'ft more away and readies attack if attacked.
What am I missing here?
Step 6. Fighter moves 15ft and starts to attack
Step 7. Kobald takes readied action and attacks then moves 5 ft away
step 8. Fighter finishes attack but can't complete so loses action
Step 9. Kobald steps 10'ft more away and readies attack if attacked.What am I missing here?
You cannot 5 foot step if you've already moved in a round. (baring weird class abilities, spells, ailements etc)
You mean you need to get Spring Attack to become effectively immortal vs a single melee combatant? Oh, whew. I thought you just solved the problem. :-)
Edit: It strikes me that that kobold doesn't even need to move before readying. He is already not adjacent.
A wild guess would put MOST physical conflicts in any given game world at two melee combatants duking it out. Any rule that prevents an attacker, 100%, from landing a blow WHILE LETTING THE DEFENDER GET ONE, will make it a world where no physical conflict happens.
The objections here are overwrought and not representative of what the rules offer. 100% prevented from landing a blow? Really?
Literally all that is required to break up this supposedly 100% reliable tactic is to end your turn next to the readying fighter. There are any number of ways to achieve this in the face of his readied action to attack/step triggered by your attack.
In the absolute worst case, if the tactic works out perfectly, it leads to the fighter who lost initiative getting clonked one extra time during the fight before he figures it out, because once is the only number of times this tactic could work, and even that relies on a stupid foe. Against an enemy who has realized what you are doing, this "100%" tactic is painfully easy to disrupt.
Which is absolutely fine. How many times does the reckless fighter pay for mindlessly charging in against the cautious tactical fighter in stories, shows, movies, etc?
How can the fighter kill the kobald with a sword - apart from readying his own action - which in and of itself solves nothing.
Here's just one of many many ways. Full defend and then move adjacent to the kobold. Or, IC, move in with a modicum of caution and footwork of your own instead of rushing headlong at a fancy-footwork, maneuvering foe every single round.
You aren't attacking, so the ready doesn't trigger and the kobold doesn't get to step away. Next round, the kobold can ready his attack and step away again, but because you'll start adjacent to him, you can start a full attack, he'll interrupt, attack, 5', but you haven't moved this turn, so you can 5' after him as part of your full attack.
Voila. Tactic broken.
More likely, since this is clearly a smart kobold, he realizes that as soon as you ended a turn adjacent to him, his jig was up. As such, he likely attacks normally or does something else on his turn.
|
You aren't attacking, so the ready doesn't trigger and the kobold doesn't get to step away. Next round, the kobold can ready his attack and step away again, but because you'll start adjacent to him, you can start a full attack, he'll interrupt, attack, 5', but you haven't moved this turn, so you can 5' after him as part of your full attack.
This assumes that you can change your action from 'full attack and then possible 5 foot step' to '5 foot step and then full attack'.
If you can change your action after it is interrupted / made impossible then the issue goes away entirely. It only exists if you CAN'T change your action, which is the common assumption given that the rules don't say anything about allowing you to do so.
You aren't attacking, so the ready doesn't trigger and the kobold doesn't get to step away. Next round, the kobold can ready his attack and step away again, but because you'll start adjacent to him, you can start a full attack, he'll interrupt, attack, 5', but you haven't moved this turn, so you can 5' after him as part of your full attack.This assumes that you can change your action from 'full attack and then possible 5 foot step' to '5 foot step and then full attack'.
No assumptions involved, this is a case where there is specific enabling text. :) The text of the full attack action explicitly allows a 5' step to be inserted whenever the heck you like in the sequence of attacks, so by all means, instead of declaring "I 5' step and then full attack,' instead say 'I full attack' and as you are proceeding add a 5' step whenever you see fit.
The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.
The problem here is mainly readying a 5' step. That should not be a legit way to avoid an attack. That's what the Dex component of your AC is for.
You can ready a standard action, not a 5 foot step. So yes, you get your readied action, but your 5 foot MOVE provokes an AOO.
The problem here is mainly readying a 5' step. That should not be a legit way to avoid an attack. That's what the Dex component of your AC is for.You can ready a standard action, not a 5 foot step. So yes, you get your readied action, but your 5 foot MOVE provokes an AOO.
You can explicitly 5 foot step as part of your readied action. It will not provoke any more than other 5 foot steps will.
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.
There is no indication that this 5 foot step has different rules than other 5 foot steps.
Coriat, melee already has trouble with action economy as the move or attack dichotomy picks up. With the dancing kobold interpretation be level 6 or two weapon fight to take out a kobold in less than three full rounds.
Its ridiculous, they got rid of crane wing for doing that. When the rules may sort kinda might be giving away something that they explicitly banned its probably not the best idea to read the rules that way.
Coriat, melee already has trouble with action economy as the move or attack dichotomy picks up. With the dancing kobold interpretation be level 6 or two weapon fight to take out a kobold in less than three full rounds.
Its ridiculous, they got rid of crane wing for doing that. When the rules may sort kinda might be giving away something that they explicitly banned
This tactic obviously fails in group battles because while you are waiting for the swordsman to take your bait the archer puts three arrows in your skull while the wizard mind controls your buddy and makes him stab you in the back. Almost irrelevant in such a context.
It's only relevant to 1v1 duels, so if it doesn't work there, it's no good anywhere.
And it's easy to disrupt in 1v1 duels. Frankly just stopping it is the most basic and gentlest response. A smart foe will let you do it and take advantage of the action economy you're handing him.
You mean you need to get Spring Attack to become effectively immortal vs a single melee combatant? Oh, whew. I thought you just solved the problem. :-)
Edit: It strikes me that that kobold doesn't even need to move before readying. He is already not adjacent.
I did spot this, I added the 10 ft move after. You are right he is already 5ft away and therefore doesn't need to move the extra 10ft. For the sake of everyone's sanity I kept quiet.
As for the 'easy fixes' that involve going up to the kobald and standing next to it doing nothing. That assumes you know the Kobalds has readied an action, which the DM is under no obligation to tell you. Does that not seem slightly contrived to you?
tldr; I've always been somewhat in the middle of the two main camps. I'm about to make a full-attack action with a Greatsword on enemy A, whose readied action triggers a Withdraw action and is suddenly no longer within reach. I'm committed to making at least one melee attack as an attack action, and must either use it or lose it. I can keep my full attack action and use it on enemy B, or I can make one attack roll on enemy B, and take a Move action to begin to follow enemy A, but I can't completely drop the full-attack action and Withdraw after enemy A.
I'm about to charge enemy A (15' away), whose readied action let's him move 5' behind cover, and out of the path of my charge. I'm committed to moving (the part of my charge that was interrupted); I MUST take a Move action to move, even if it's only 5'. Well, I guess I'll move 20' and attack enemy A normally, without the benefit/penalty of Charge.
This route prevents held actions from being useless (in scenario A, I shouldn't be allowed to drop my melee weapon, quick draw my longbow, and blast on enemy A despite the full round he spent JUST to get away from me). And yet, I shouldn't have to lose an entire turn of what martials are expected to do just because of a readied action. If enemy A was the only one within my melee reach, yeah, I still end up losing an attack roll, but at least I didn't lose my ENTIRE turn, and enemy A didn't risk a readied action just for me to cast a spell instead.