Let me make a gentle suggestion, Nicholas, that you do not understand the point I made and that you are taking it in directions that have nothing to do with it. I'd rather table the discussion with you in particular at this point and see what other people who had been participating in the thread have to say.
citation. I just listed the rule
The rule has already been cited. You are just ignoring it.
And a number of other people do. So, there's that.
5' steps have a specific get out of jail free card written into their rules. It only applies to 5' steps, and it only works because of their special rules, and it allows me to change my position during my action, not to change my action itself.
If you're trying to draw a broad overarching principle of 'takebacks are allowed' from my argument, you did fail to understand it, because it is based on the specific enabling rules text that the designers did write into the rules for 5' steps, and did not write into the rules for what you want to accomplish. Because it is based in rules that are only for 5' steps, it does not translate into the broader argument you seem to be seeking.
If you want to be mad at somebody, be mad at whoever wrote me a rule specifically saying I can take a 5' step when I've already started my attack action, but didn't write you a rule specifically saying that you can use your circlet of blasting when you've already started your attack action.
Kindly refrain from throwing accusations of hypocrisy at me, though, over what someone else did and didn't write into the rulebook.
As Coriat and I are stating the same thing, just who is the "No take backs" directed at?
If you need a very specific feat in your build to kill a kobold, or can't melee a kobold to death because of a gray area of the rules, something has gone horribly wrong.I seriously wish you would knock it off with the "can't" kill the kobold thing, and all the similar statements of that ilk. That you keep repeating it and repeating it despite knowing that it is not an accurate description suggests that you don't have any confidence in the merits of your case to convince, if presented standing on their own and without exaggeration.
You've admited, at best, to taking 2 rounds followed by a lizard spock game to kill the thing. I don't need to do any more convincing. Halving someone's action economy with NO chance of error, bypassing the hit and ac system that make up the core of the game on an absurdly gray area of the rules is beyond absurd. If you think the rest of the party is going to wait for you to figure out the kobolds next action and respons appropriately you haven't been delving with the same murder hobos I have. They're going to shoot the thing and the melee player is going to get frustrated.
The rules do not cover this. Elvis has left the building. You're arguing in favor of a rules exploit Hits and misses in this game are decided by AC vs attack, not a love connection style game of writing your readied action on the card and hoping to word the specific readied action exactly the right way and guesse your opponents action. Being able to react to an opponents attempts to dodge are already covered in the rules by your to hit.
Unless you manage to produce an invincibility tactic for the kobold, maybe we all could start saying something like "make it slightly more complicated to kill the kobold" instead of "can't kill the kobold?"
;)
Your rules have the fighter unable to kill a kobold. I am not quantifying that with a USDA warning.
Your rules have the fighter unable to kill a kobold. I am not quantifying that with a USDA warning.Unless you manage to produce an invincibility tactic for the kobold, maybe we all could start saying something like "make it slightly more complicated to kill the kobold" instead of "can't kill the kobold?"
;)
Sooo... no to both then? You can't produce a tactic, but you won't stop saying it?
All righty. I suppose I can put up w...
The rules do not cover this. Elvis has left the building.
...Are you sure you can't be convinced? This really is unpleasantly histrionic.
(Did he leave the building?
Or can he come to the phone.
Don't you think maybe you could put him on?)
I disagree. I think the readied action interrupts the players turn and he gets to continue his actions from that point. Just as you argued your guy could take a 5' step before his attack. I argue my guy never would attack an empty square so he is able to move 5' more and attack the kobold.
You aren't attacking an empty square intentionally. You are attacking the kobold that is vacating the square just before your swing hits.
The counter to this (provided you start adjacent) is to take your 5' step *during* your attack, essentially following him as he performs his readied action.
If you want a visual of how this works, think the Duel between Wesley and Inigo Montoya. The start of their duel and the back and forth is exactly this sort of back and forth.
Think of this as a "retreating strike" (the kobold) and an "advancing strike" (the fighter).
...Are you sure you can't be convinced? This really is unpleasantly overwrought.
You can't show me the rules source that says what happens when an action becomes invalid. The DM has to sort it out. Sorting it out so that someone's character gets an automatic miss because they think their player is being clever is horribly exploitative.
They nerfed cranewing for this. I don't think they're handing it out.
You can't show me the rules source that says what happens when an action becomes invalid.
Really? An invalid action fails. Your swing misses, just like if you were attacking a square for an invisible person you hadn't pinpointed.
Really? An invalid action fails. Your swing misses, just like if you were attacking a square for an invisible person you hadn't pinpointed.
You can't show me the rules source that says what happens when an action becomes invalid.
Attacking a square is a specified and legal action with spelled out consequences.
...Are you sure you can't be convinced? This really is unpleasantly overwrought.You can't show me the rules source that says what happens when an action becomes invalid. The DM has to sort it out. Sorting it out so that someone's character gets an automatic miss because they think their player is being clever is horribly exploitative.
They nerfed cranewing for this. I don't think they're handing it out.
You can't show me the rules source that says what happens when an action becomes invalid.
You can't show me the rules source
show me the rules source
If a FAQ isn't a rules source, then neither is Errata, or the textbook. You might as well just pitch the entire Pathfinder game if that's not a rules source. If you are affected with something that you are using as a requirement to perform an action (such as casting a 4th level spell with 24 Intelligence), and you're afflicted with 11 Intelligence Drain, then you can no longer cast 4th level spells. It's invalid. Similarly, in the FAQ's example, if you're paralyzed by Hold Person, it's invalid for you to take any physical actions (such as melee attacking).
You really are mis-reading the text. It's not like the attack doesn't go off, nor is it invalidated. It just only works on an empty square. (Or a party member, if you really have to burn off the steam.) Is it wasted? Yes. That's never been disputed. But wasted and invalidated are two completely separate things. If it's invalid, then it never could have been taken in the first place, meaning no proxy occurs, no readied action triggers, none of that stuff ever happens. If it's wasted, then it occurs, but nothing effectively happens other than the events of the subject matter.
That's not why they nerfed Crane Wing. They nerfed Crane Wing because it was being used way before it was normally supposed to be used, and they reacted in such a manner so as to put a quick makeshift "lid" on the uproar it was causing in PFS. Even with their "final" adjustments, this could have been solved in one of two ways with little repercussion: Banning an archetype, or nerfing the archetype to not circumvent BAB or Monk level requirements.
bbangerter
Thats very different. Its a "you can't" rather than "You must" action.
Also, it specifically wouldn't work with spells. You select a spells target after casting. The fighter should have at least as much control over their sword and be able to attack someone else, which means.. yup. Reacted to something that never happened.
I can understand and appreciate that from your view point. From mine, "you can't" and "you must (continue an invalid action)" mechanically result in the same thing.
As an aside, I don't ascribe the the entire list of things you could take a readied action on as Ascalphas (sp?). For example, even though deflect arrows designates between an attack roll and taking damage, I wouldn't allow a readied action to occur between those two things. Likewise I wouldn't allow a readied action between the completion of the spell and the spells targeting, unless that targeting was the free action for touch attack/ranged attack spells for example.
The rules don't really define for us what a valid condition for readied actions are though.
Attacking a square is a specified and legal action with spelled out consequences.Really? An invalid action fails. Your swing misses, just like if you were attacking a square for an invisible person you hadn't pinpointed.
You can't show me the rules source that says what happens when an action becomes invalid.
So your entire problem is some pedantic fixation on the definition of "invalid"?
Attacking a square is a specified and legal action with spelled out consequences.Really? An invalid action fails. Your swing misses, just like if you were attacking a square for an invisible person you hadn't pinpointed.
You can't show me the rules source that says what happens when an action becomes invalid.
Yes, it is. So, your attack doesn't become invalid, you just miss, automatically, because you are still able to attack, you just can't hit him because you are attacking empty space.
Still a valid attack since you are still able to attack.
So where's the problem here?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to use this thread when trying to prove that rules questions turn into embarrassing arguments. This is pathetic.
Agree to disagree and move on. This has deteriorated into a screaming match akin to children saying "I told you so" repeatedly to each other.
Does not having anything in the game describe what is a reasonable trigger mean the GM has to make that call? By RAW, I mean?
I'm going to use this thread when trying to prove that rules questions turn into embarrassing arguments. This is pathetic.
Careful, such a point in a different thread is likely to turn that thread into an embarrassing argument.
Agree to disagree and move on. This has deteriorated into a screaming match akin to children saying "I told you so" repeatedly to each other.
Don't take this personal, but um... no? :) There are some posts in this thread not worth responding to, but I'll bow out of the thread when I don't feel like contributing/discussing it anymore.
Does not having anything in the game describe what is a reasonable trigger mean the GM has to make that call? By RAW, I mean?
Yes, a GM is certainly free to call that 'being attacked' is not a valid trigger. But that isn't the focus of this thread/discussion. I'd also not play with such a GM - if the GM wants to shut down the readied attack/5' step, there are better ways to do it then disallowing that as a trigger.
So your entire problem is some pedantic fixation on the definition of "invalid"?
No.
The big picture problem is that some people take unclear rules and try to get a mechanical advantage as huge as an automatic miss.
Does not having anything in the game describe what is a reasonable trigger mean the GM has to make that call? By RAW, I mean?Yes, a GM is certainly free to call that 'being attacked' is not a valid trigger. But that isn't the focus of this thread/discussion. I'd also not play with such a GM - if the GM wants to shut down the readied attack/5' step, there are better ways to do it then disallowing that as a trigger.
Well, you are certainly free to houserule it at your table. What you would like to be true doesn't have any sort of bearing on RAW. =)
|
So your entire problem is some pedantic fixation on the definition of "invalid"?
No.
The big picture problem is that unclear rules lead to a mechanical advantage as huge as an automatic miss.
So make a GM call. Obviously if the rule is unclear, there isn't another way for us to prove it one way or the other. Make a GM call.
If my player tries to ready for being attacked, I'll likely tell them that they can ready for when it seems they will be attacked, as the announcement of an attack action is player knowledge not character knowledge.
If Dancing Kobold ever happens, players will know that pumping their sword menacingly will get the Kobold to attack before they actually commit to an action.
That's a GM call that solves the problem without hundreds of back and forth posts.
So make a GM call. Obviously if the rule is unclear, there isn't another way for us to prove it one way or the other. Make a GM call.
*headscratch*
Put my 2 copper on a take not not-an-FAQ style answer to this one. The potential timmy whimmey balls resulting from this aren't something the rules can codify all that well.
+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.
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.
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.
And for what? There are no rules telling you you have to do it this way. The rules kinda break and disolve into a timey whimey ball and leave it to the DM as to how to handle it. This is the absolute worst way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you are certainly free to houserule it at your table. What you would like to be true doesn't have any sort of bearing on RAW. =)Does not having anything in the game describe what is a reasonable trigger mean the GM has to make that call? By RAW, I mean?Yes, a GM is certainly free to call that 'being attacked' is not a valid trigger. But that isn't the focus of this thread/discussion. I'd also not play with such a GM - if the GM wants to shut down the readied attack/5' step, there are better ways to do it then disallowing that as a trigger.
Irony.
BNW
Let's look at this from a different perspective.
1) Do you believe the dancing kobold is an edge case scenario for readied actions?
2) Do you believe how rules function should be based off of edge case scenarios?
BNW
Let's look at this from a different perspective.
1) Do you believe the dancing kobold is an edge case scenario for readied actions?
No, I think its the tip of, if not an iceberg, then a pretty big shoal of exploitable readied actions. Look through the thread: people want to split a spell into targeting and effect phases of a spell and move 30 feet in between them. or run up to a wizard when they start casting to get the AoO.
2) Do you believe how rules function should be based off of edge case scenarios?
I think its a mistake to try to get the rules to function accross the board as if they were as consistent as reality.
BNW
Let's look at this from a different perspective.
1) Do you believe the dancing kobold is an edge case scenario for readied actions?
No, I think its the tip of, if not an iceberg, then a pretty big shoal of exploitable readied actions. Look through the thread: people want to split a spell into targeting and effect phases of a spell and move 30 feet in between them. or run up to a wizard when they start casting to get the AoO.
Can you provide any other examples then of an exploitable issue?
2) Do you believe how rules function should be based off of edge case scenarios?I think its a mistake to try to get the rules to function accross the board as if they were as consistent as reality.
The rules are always written for the general case. FAQ's sometimes point out how to adjudicate edge cases, but generally edge cases are left to GM fiat. A large percentage of rules questions are based around edge cases because the general cases are understood already.
(BTW, I wouldn't use the view point expressed by one person - the spell breakdown - as a list of exploitable issues. I'd be surprised if many people break down what you could ready an action on to that fine a level).
As Coriat and I are stating the same thing, just who is the "No take backs" directed at?Way early in the thread.
during[/b], or after your other actions in the round.[/url]
There is no taking back, during your attack, after you've started and after the kobold moves, you take your five foot step, DURING your attack is when you're taking this 5ft step.
Because 5ft steps can be done WHENEVER you don't need to declare them until you want to use it. Was my fighter going to attack and 5ft during that attack? Don't know, didn't get that far before the kobold moved. now that he has, yes, I'd like to take my 5ft step now DURING this swing I had that the kobold dodged to put it back into range. There are no take backs. Because you can take a 5ft WHENEVER you're acting you can add it in after their 5ft readied action.
Coriat's argument essentially breaks down to the following.
Attacking Dancing Kobold = {5 ft. step then Attack D.K., Attack D.K., Attack D.K. then 5 ft. step}
And that set is identical to {Attack D.K.} because Attack D.K. = 5 ft. step during Attack D.K. and according to set theory, two sets which differ only in that one has duplicate members are in fact exactly identical.
Ergo, if you attack D.K. and he has readied to attack you then, as legal upon his attack, 5 ft. step, you can 5ft. step after him and complete your attack, assuming you have not moved in the round.
You cannot attack a different kobold. You cannot cast a spell. You cannot drink a potion. You must attack D.K. You have committed to the action. However, that action to which you have committed includes the option to 5 ft. step during. Just as a kobold does not need to ready the 5 ft. step as part of HIS action. He merely needs to ready an attack against the attacker, and may decide, upon taking that action, to use a 5 ft. step during. (if you cannot imagine a scenario where the kobold steps toward the attacker, reach weapons.)
In round 2 the kobald and the fighter start 5ft away because of the Kobald's round one 5 ft step.
Round two the fighter needs to step in 5ft first to even be in attack range. As a result he doesn't have the second 5ft to use when the kobald steps back in round two as part of its readied action.
In round 2 the kobald and the fighter start 5ft away because of the Kobald's round one 5 ft step.
Round two the fighter needs to step in 5ft first to even be in attack range. As a result he doesn't have the second 5ft to use when the kobald steps back in round two as part of its readied action.
that's why the fighter doesn't be stupid and instead moves in and waits till his next turn.
that's why the fighter doesn't be stupid and instead moves in and waits till his next turn.In round 2 the kobald and the fighter start 5ft away because of the Kobald's round one 5 ft step.
Round two the fighter needs to step in 5ft first to even be in attack range. As a result he doesn't have the second 5ft to use when the kobald steps back in round two as part of its readied action.
The kobold swings at you and moves back anyway. He readied for you to stop moving.
Lets be very clear. When you keep saying the fighter doesn't be stupid or the fighter doesn't suck at their job you're taking jabs at the player and the other people in this conversation.
The kobold readies an action to A) attack when you attack. B) attack when you move adjacent/in threatened range/whatever. (Stop moving is invalid because if you have more movement, you can continue.)
You move in on the kobold. He does not trigger on your move. Assuming you want to even play this absurd game with him, you halt, and wait for the next round.
OR
You move in on the kobold. He triggers on you moving adjacent and steps back 5 ft. You finish, with 15-25 ft remaining in movement, and follow him back where you smack his little kobold head off.
BUT I PREFER
After round 1, the kobold repeats his readying nonsense. You ignore him entirely, leaving him to dick around wasting his turn while you slaughter his pet pig or shaman or girlfriend.
So your entire problem is some pedantic fixation on the definition of "invalid"?
No.
The big picture problem is that some people take unclear rules and try to get a mechanical advantage as huge as an automatic miss.
Attacking an empty square is an automatic miss. This isn't game breaking.
The kobold readies an action to A) attack when you attack. B) attack when you move adjacent/in threatened range/whatever. (Stop moving is invalid because if you have more movement, you can continue.)
You move in on the kobold. He does not trigger on your move. Assuming you want to even play this absurd game with him, you halt, and wait for the next round.
OR
You move in on the kobold. He triggers on you moving adjacent and steps back 5 ft. You finish, with 15-25 ft remaining in movement, and follow him back where you smack his little kobold head off.
BUT I PREFER
After round 1, the kobold repeats his readying nonsense. You ignore him entirely, leaving him to dick around wasting his turn while you slaughter his pet pig or shaman or girlfriend.
It quickly turns into a game of
1) what readied actions can I or can't I take,
2) some weird rock siccors paper game for what series of actions beat which other series of actions. For the dm to be fair, you'd have to write your answer down on a placcard dating game style
The fighter knows that the kobold is delaying. They don't know the trigger action.
In round 2 the kobald and the fighter start 5ft away because of the Kobald's round one 5 ft step.
Round two the fighter needs to step in 5ft first to even be in attack range. As a result he doesn't have the second 5ft to use when the kobald steps back in round two as part of its readied action.
If the fighter is smart, after observing this behavior before, merely moves up adjacent to the D.K. and does an intimidate or something equally "not attacking", and then basically tells D.K. he has 6 seconds to live.
The kobold swings at you and moves back anyway. He readied for you to stop moving.Lets be very clear. When you keep saying the fighter doesn't be stupid or the fighter doesn't suck at their job you're taking jabs at the player and the other people in this conversation.
Ok, after I stop moving, I continue my movement and continue being adjacent. Because after their readied action goes off, it is still my turn, and I can stop and start my movement (as long as I don't attack) as many times as I like.
Really, this is getting to be pedantic. Stop thinking that just because the Kobold is a kobold that he should just stand there an die because you are the big bad human fighter.
Ok, after I stop moving, I continue my movement and continue being adjacent.
Really, this is getting to be pedantic.
Yes. yes it is.
Now imagine every combat going this way.
Stop thinking that just because the Kobold is a kobold that he should just stand there an die because you are the big bad human fighter.
I love kobolds and clever tactics. Cover , traps, stealth ambushes, a kobold shaman using magic jar to possess the tribe and attack the party one by one, a kobold dance troop all in shamans headdresses mimicking the shamans spellcasting as part of a pour mans mirror image...
But that is the kobold being clever in character and out of character. The dancing kobold readied action amounts to "hit someone else and still get out of the way of a sword". "Get the heck out of the way of the sword" is something all characters are doing ALL the time. Its not a clever plan.
Kobald is being used as an example. Replace the kobald with bear, tiger, ghoul, shambling mound, t-Rex, gorillion, gnoll, whatever you like. The proposed notion of "stand next to them and do nothing" does not fit the game that I play, and I suspect that some posters like Quintain either are trying to obtain a tricksy advantage or just playing devils advocate.
Neither helps. I suggest we park the issue unless someone has something new to add.
Ok, after I stop moving, I continue my movement and continue being adjacent.
Really, this is getting to be pedantic.
Yes. yes it is.
Now imagine every combat going this way.
Doesn't bother me in the least. At worst, it adds 6 seconds to the life if the kobold. Personally, I think Pathfinder should incorporate much more dynamic movement into it's combat system -- see my Hackmaster 5th edition comments above -- if you have ever played that system you know it is one thing...smooth
Stop thinking that just because the Kobold is a kobold that he should just stand there an die because you are the big bad human fighter.
I love kobolds and clever tactics. Cover , traps, stealth ambushes, a kobold shaman using magic jar to possess the tribe and attack the party one by one, a kobold dance troop all in shamans headdresses mimicking the shamans spellcasting as part of a pour mans mirror image...
But that is the kobold being clever in character and out of character. The dancing kobold readied action amounts to "hit someone else and still get out of the way of a sword". "Get the heck out of the way of the sword" is something all characters are doing ALL the time. Its not a clever plan.
No, it is a basic tactic of melee combat. Don't be where they are attacking -- Sun Tzu.
Lol, Sun Tzu was talking about armies and I think he had a little more distance in mind than 5 ft.
Kobald is being used as an example. Replace the kobald with bear, tiger, ghoul, shambling mound, t-Rex, gorillion, gnoll, whatever you like. The proposed notion of "stand next to them and do nothing" does not fit the game that I play, and I suspect that some posters like Quintain either are trying to obtain a tricksy advantage or just playing devils advocate.
Neither helps. I suggest we park the issue unless someone has something new to add.
I'm doing neither. Personally, the melee combat system in Pathfinder is *boring*. There is no back and forth, it's pick your target and roll dice to resolve.
There is very little in the way of tactical movement beyond move up to your opponent and hit it with something big.
Lol, Sun Tzu was talking about armies and I think he had a little more distance in mind than 5 ft.
Same principle applies.
Quintain - if you want to homebrew some new rules for combat I suggest you fill your boots for me...
Charging, pouncing, stepping, single move, double move, five foot step, full attack, standard attack, cleave, power attack, trip, sunder, disarm, ready attack, combat expertise, grapple, reposition, drag, step up, fight defensively, attacks of opportunity, withdraw, total defence etc etc etc. Gives plent of options for fighting even before we take more complicated feats into consideration. At the end of the day combat is, and has always been move into range and roll to hit...
... Cheesing auto success in not clever, or tactical, it is both a player and DM's nightmare waiting to happen and it will likely destroy the fun of combat for everyone apart from the cheesemonger who spends their time trying to get away with it.
The answer to the OP question of 'what happens when your action becomes invalid' is 'the action is spent anyways.'
If you attacked someone and their readied action removed them from your range, you attack anyways and miss.
If you cast a spell on someone and their readied action removed them from your range, you cast the spell anyways to no effect. Etc.
However, the kobold is not invincible due to potential actions explained numerous times by Coriat.
It quickly turns into a game of1) what readied actions can I or can't I take,
2) some weird rock siccors paper game for what series of actions beat which other series of actions. For the dm to be fair, you'd have to write your answer down on a placcard dating game styleThe fighter knows that the kobold is delaying. They don't know the trigger action.
1. You cannot trigger for impossible conditions. "I attack the first person to think of their girlfriend," "I attack the first lawful evil fighter to hop on one leg"
I would personally go a step further and say you can only ready (and trigger) on positive actions of which you are aware.
There is no in-game awareness of 'fighter class' ergo it is invalid to set as a trigger. There is in-game awareness of 'lawful evil', but it requires some specific effects, so anyone you have not detected (or whatever) counts as 'not Lawful Evil' Same for invisible foes that you cannot see.
You cannot trigger on 'runs out of movement' or 'stops moving' because you don't know how much movement someone has left, and as long as they have movement left and have not taken another action in between, they can keep using that movement.
You can trigger on 'moves adjacent' or 'moves onto [trapped] square' or 'attacks me' because those are all positive actions that can be viewed in character.
It isn't really the guessing game you make it out to be.
As for the kobold, I see it delaying. Based on my previous experience, I suspect he's trying to sucker me again.
Did he pick 'when foe moves adjacent'? Well, I'm headed over there now, guess we'll find out. I move adjacent. Did he hit me and spring away 5 ft.? No? Then he likely has 'when foe attacks me'. I use the Intimidate action to cause him to be shaken, and end my turn adjacent to him. On the next round, he's screwed.
Or, he does hit me and springs away. I have 15 ft. movement left. I go after him, and kill him with my standard action remaining.
Or, as soon as I see him not bother to use his action, I assume he's pulling some nonsense with readied actions against me, use a free action to tell my pals that he's a dancer, and go murder someone else because I'm a big bad fighter and the kobolds are going to die.
These are all very simple things to do. If you keep rushing in on the guy who keeps dancing away, you deserve to die. Repeating a failing tactic ad nauseum should kill you on the battlefield.
Ok and what if it is the player using the 5ft trick and the attacker is a T-Rex? Or other animal intelligence creature not so good at predicting attacks.
Also what was argued originally was I ready an attack for if the opponent attacks - not finished movement or draws adjacent.