|
I really don't like this argument. You have once again gone into a very specific case. The T-Rex should be pretty susceptible to being outsmarted in this way. I see no issue with gaining advantages in specific situations through tactics.
This is similar to me to saying you shouldn't be able to trip a zombie because it takes the zombie's whole action to stand back up. Game-breaking action economy destruction, right?
T-rex has reach. Moving in closer to get a hold of a quick moving prey is not beyond the intelligence of an animal. Alternately, seeking out easier prey when confronted with a strange or particularly difficult meal is fairly standard for animals.
So you try to be the dancing kobold, ready to move when bit. T-Rex moves in on you. Attacks at the very edge of its reach, 15 ft. away. You dance away, ending the round 20 ft. away from the T-Rex.
Round 2, the frustrated T-Rex moves in on you and attacks at 10 ft. away. Your readied attack is wasted. You step away and end the round in range of the T-Rex next turn. You never get to pull it off again, because 5ft. step rules are not limited to higher than animal int. Every attack it makes at 15 ft. away having not moved yet can add a free of charge 5 ft. step in at any point.
It's a good first round tactic to get the T-rex to blow its initial attack. Assuming of course, that the T-rex attacks you and not someone else. It is not invincibility.
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.
Animals are very instinctual and can adapt to "food on the hoof".
the T-Rex (which has a 20? foot reach) sees our dancing fighter dodge his first attack by moving out of reach, then moves so that he can reach him even if he dances away 5'.
Our dancing fighter becomes a snack on round 3 at the latest.
I really don't like this argument. You have once again gone into a very specific case. The T-Rex should be pretty susceptible to being outsmarted in this way. I see no issue with gaining advantages in specific situations through tactics.
This is similar to me to saying you shouldn't be able to trip a zombie because it takes the zombie's whole action to stand back up. Game-breaking action economy destruction, right?
It really isn't specific, it could be practically any predominantly melee attacker that wouldn't reasonably assume a defender would step 5ft.
Secondly allowing a creature into your longer reach kind of goes against most combat styles I'm awarded of. Improved reach is one of the greatest single advantages you can get and forcing an attacker to give that up is a bit dumb.
Anyway. Nothing that has been said in the last few hundred posts has convinced me it's anything other than the stingiest cheesemonger you. I suspect nothing I or others have said against it has convinced you that we aren't the most mean spirited of grognards. At this point I really will bow out (for real this time, honest) and see if the 90 odd requests for FAQs are responded to.
Happy New Year Everyone.
I think the "readied attack + 5 ft. step = action lost" side are correct RAW.
But I'm with BNW and don't like the "dancing kobold" outcome/game of "guess the readied action" that this leads to in the specific edge case hotly discussed, even if the outcome is only 1 round's actions lost. It seems a really gamist exploitation of the abstraction rules to me (I know loopholes are part of the game, but...). I'm also with the poster (Ascalaphus?) a few pages back who couldn't see an easy fix & didn't want to throw all the "sensible" uses of ready out to deal with this edge case.
So I'm going to houserule that, whilst you are free to 5 ft. step away, you can't avoid the incoming attack that way (the attacker's strike still gets to resolve, albeit after the readier's strike) - this has some parallels with the swashbuckler deed mentioned about 5 pages back.
Order of operations would be:
- A readies attack & step for if B attacks
- B moves up and swings
- A's ready triggers, his attack is resolved
- If B is still up, his attack is resolved
- Only then does A step away
The intended effect of this houserule is that the only way to avoid an incoming melee attack with a readied action "on attack" is to *incapacitate the attacker*. I think this may be the intent of the CRB examples given. If you wanted to dodge away, you'd have to trigger "on move adjacent" or something that gives the attacker a chance to counter.
I'd need to have a bit more of a think about disarm/sunder/more dramatic movements. But my instinct is these are ok as is - maybe disarm/sunder haven't come up enough in my games to cause trouble :-)
Happy New Year!
Your idea Elro, or the bizarre idea (not yours, I don't think) that you shouldn't be able to ready for an attack are making the issue worse. The only outcome of your ideas is that the order of operations becomes more confused, not less so.
Again, against anyone who is not doggedly determined to succeed via a singular method in the face of previous failure, this tactic might buy one round. Might, because you cannot be sure that you will be attacked, or attacked in melee, or whatever level of specific-ness you attached to the readied action.
It cannot make a kobold invulnerable to a fighter.
It cannot make a monk invulnerable to a T-Rex.
It cannot make a giant invulnerable to a barbarian.
The more you screw around with the actual order of operations established, the more likely you are to either create inadvertent situations where a reach advantage does actually lead to immunity or the slower the game has to crawl when you go figure out how your rules changed the official ones.
If simplicity is the goal of your houserule, remove readied actions entirely. But these slight adjustments (or the truly odd thoughts like the nonsensical concept of 'stating that you pump your weapon around, keeping people from telling when you attack') make things more complex and not inherently any more fair.
|
An attacker that attacks the defender who is "ready action 5 ft. step" dancing from him continues his attack as normal. He cannot waste an attack action that he didn't get a chance to roll for so he can simply continue his movement (if any is left) to the defender. I seriously doubt that Paizo would even answer this FAQ really.
Again, against anyone who is not doggedly determined to succeed via a singular method in the face of previous failure, this tactic might buy one round. Might, because you cannot be sure that you will be attacked, or attacked in melee, or whatever level of specific-ness you attached to the readied action.
It cannot make a kobold invulnerable to a fighter.
It cannot make a monk invulnerable to a T-Rex.
It cannot make a giant invulnerable to a barbarian.
The more you screw around with the actual order of operations established, the more likely you are to either create inadvertent situations where a reach advantage does actually lead to immunity or the slower the game has to crawl when you go figure out how your rules changed the official ones.
And there are plenty of other tactics that might buy one round and that are just as nonproblematic as readying is.
If the kobold chucks a javelin from a distance and then runs away screaming his head off, it might cost his foe the very same round of actions, or maybe even a couple rounds, to catch up.
That's fine. So is this.
Again, against anyone who is not doggedly determined to succeed via a singular method in the face of previous failure, this tactic might buy one round. Might, because you cannot be sure that you will be attacked, or attacked in melee, or whatever level of specific-ness you attached to the readied action.
It cannot make a kobold invulnerable to a fighter.
It cannot make a monk invulnerable to a T-Rex.
It cannot make a giant invulnerable to a barbarian.
The more you screw around with the actual order of operations established, the more likely you are to either create inadvertent situations where a reach advantage does actually lead to immunity or the slower the game has to crawl when you go figure out how your rules changed the official ones.
And there are plenty of other tactics that might buy one round and that are just as nonproblematic as readying is.
If the kobold chucks a javelin from a distance and then runs away screaming his head off, it might cost his foe the very same round of actions, or maybe even a couple rounds, to catch up.
That's fine. So is this.
[sarcasm]Oh no, the big different is that one made me "waste" an action/turn, the other I get to complete my action, even if they don't get the kobold killed. One I have all the information beforehand to act against, the other I don't, since the kobold readied an action and I don't know what he's going to do or what his trigger is, WHICH IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF READIED ACTIONS. So if I do the wrong thing and the Kobold outplayed me and accurately guessed what I would do and negated that, that's WRONG because then my fighter doesn't get to do what he was wanting to do. And having a player not get what he wants is obviously a rule abuse.[/sarcasm]
Imagine this, then. You have been through this exact maneuver before from the same kobold. You are going in again, and again he has delayed, looking at you just like he did last time. You know what will happen. And yet, it is completely impossible for you to thump him despite that. No matter your level, to hit, damage, whatever. The little baseline kobold is going to attack you and move out of your reach again, no matter if you KNOW this is coming, accept the blow, or anything else. Not okay.
Yes. If you do exactly what you did before, regardless of the happy self positive thoughts you think as you commit yourself to the action that you knew would fail, you still miss.
Completely ok.
You say that there are plenty of options that make combat dynamic, Sword, but are there really? Breaking down what you've listed:
Charging
A low-level tactic that makes you more vulnerable at the expense of further guaranteeing what should otherwise be a guaranteed hit. Not only is it impractical, but there is no feasible endgame to draw upon with this without combining it with the next subject, meaning it's not really imperative to all levels of play, as well as it being hardly ever used past 8th level unless you're facing enemies with ridiculous AC.
pouncing
A Charge 2.0 tactic that is heavily limited in its acquirability, essentially combining the benefits of Charge with the benefits of a Full Attack. Easily the most powerful melee ability in the game. The most common ways to get this is with the Beast Totem rage powers, being a 6th level or higher Druid, Beast Shape II spell, and some other abilities that attempt to mimic this in a lesser form (such as Mobile Fighter, Greater Bladed Dash spell, etc).
stepping
This isn't an action you can take. Disregarding this one.
single move
This can be used tactically, such as by using a Readied Action for when an enemy fires with a bow on an enemy target, getting a free attack. However, you would disregard this as cheese, meaning all it's good for is closing or creating gaps from melee, or hiding behind cover from ranged assaults. Hmmm....
double move
Same as above, except it's twice as much. I suppose if you really need to book it, then sure. But most people would not do this unless it was the only smart decision in their repertoire.
five foot step
According to you and several others, this is cheese-ridden, and therefore shouldn't be used as a reliable tactic. Sorry, but if it's ruined one way, it's practically ruined in every other way as well.
full attack
This is what every player does by the endgame (barring Mythic rules) if they're melee, regardless of if they're using Manufactured or Natural Weapons. More attacks = More Static Bonuses = More Damage. But guess what? You can't move or really do anything else with this. The second most powerful and most commonly used tactic is also the least permissive. Imagine that.
standard attack
This is really only relevant for Mythic rules and the beginning levels, because let's face it, past 6th-8th level, you're gonna be using Full Attacks. The only thing that trumps it is Mythic Vital Strike, which requires a Standard Attack. Even creatures with multiple Natural Weapons will usually not use this sort of thing unless they absolutely have to.
cleave
I remember back when this was really awesome to have back in 3.X. Downing an enemy and you get to make another free attack at your current BAB against another adjacent enemy? Roll the bones! But guess what, they originally revised it to function as a Standard Action that sucks nuts and requires more feats to keep relevant, and when they brought in the original, they put it all behind a giant feat wall. This is too feat intensive to even bother with without sacrificing the other things needed to survive. Whirlwind Attack and non-mythic Vital Strike feat chains suffer from this very same thing, and is perhaps one of the biggest reasons why they are so rarely seen in combat.
power attack
The factor that this is something that everyone has, it's too de facto for it to really be considered dynamic or interesting. Is it hilarious when players miss because they used the feat? Yes. But is it dynamic when players use it all the time? Not really.
trip
Not only is this highly unreliable to use, but this is almost as much cheese as the 5-foot step you suggested earlier, if only because of Reach Weapons. It otherwise has unwarranted pre-requisites that only those with ample statistics can stand to spend.
sunder
This can be dynamic, but I'm sure a lot of people don't like it when you're breaking their future loot.
disarm
This is very similar to Trip, except it's unreliable against creatures that don't use Manufactured weapons, and isn't really cheesey.
ready attack
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can't use what you consider a broken activity as a means to allow dynamic combat. If you won't allow it at your table, then I don't even know why you mentioned it.
combat expertise
Almost every person on the forums here will tell you that this is just a feat tax for Martials to do something besides Full Attack/Pounce every combat. They might be right, and I disagree, but the point here is that this sense of dynamism has a price that almost no player would want to pay for, and most would just pretend that this feat didn't even exist.
grapple
The big man himself has said that in certain situations, you wouldn't want to use an action like this in combat (I believe the example was a Monk that can still unleash a Flurry of Blows and such). In the "Dancing Kobold" interpretation, this is one of those situations what you wouldn't want to just melee attack them to death, but whatever. This also suffers from the same issues that Trip and Disarm have.
reposition
I have yet to come across a table that can make a maneuver like this work, much less bother using it. You shouldn't call something part of its dynamism if it's never used or taken to begin with.
drag
See above, though I've had to use this in one scenario, and that was it. Even then, it didn't have to be used, because the Grapple maneuver was enough for the job.
step up
This is a feat that you said is stupid to require in order to counter "tactics cheese". If you find having to spend resources on countering cheese stupid (such as Lunge on creatures who are sized larger than you, or to have a better advantage against other reach users), then I don't understand the point of mentioning this as a dynamic part of combat when you think it's a complete waste of time and resources on something that you shouldn't have to spend a feat for. In essence, this is your Combat Expertise.
fight defensively
This is a tactic that's not really great to use normally, but when invested, becomes powerful enough to just be de facto. Unfortunately, combat isn't exactly "defense-centric," meaning investments into something like this are secondary compared to investments into bonuses to hit and damage.
attacks of opportunity
This is really only great if you can force enemy provocations (i.e. self-generate free full BAB attacks), or find alternative uses for these subjects. The nice thing is that this can be used on all sides of the spectrum (both offense and defense). The bad thing is that this is inadvertantly part of the Reach cheese that you don't like, so I'm not sure if that's something you can reliably say is a part of combat dynamism. YMMV.
withdraw
Most optimized martials would have no use for this tactic. This is really a means to reduce/negate HP loss for something that you were going to do anyway (double move). I might as well paint "Coward" onto my armor if I have to use this tactic regularly.
total defence
Seems like a lot, right? Except several of them are part of an evil cheese plot that you don't like, and therefore shouldn't be allowed, or even considered as tactics. A lot of those were actually fairly good ones that did add to Combat's dynamism. You subtract all the ones you don't like and all the ones that are actually traps or hardly ever done/taken, and you're left with maybe 3 or 4 options. Of course, that isn't all of them, and some of them are listed that shouldn't be listed anyway.
And then you go and say this:
At the end of the day combat is, and has always been move into range and roll to hit...
I'm glad we're so concerned about keeping the dynamism of the entire two-part series of Combat that putting some sentience behind would just destroy. How dare Combat no longer be about moving miniatures all over the place and rolling dice randomly! How dare these things called "Strategy" and "Tactics" interfere with this perfect, two-sided aspect of what I call Combat that's about as mindless as the Ooze the PCs are fighting! [oldmanvoice]This sentience thing better get off my porch or I'll get my twelve gauge shotgun from the wall next to my rocking chair and blow its head clean off its shoulders![/yoldmanvoice]
**EDIT** Took medication for Wall of Text Syndrome. Should be better...
I don't believe in traps. That is an optimisers word. You can chose to play the game that way but I don't recognise that approach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sword, can you even see the rest of us from your vantage point on that moral high ground?
I'll be honest, it's getting hard to sort out the different positions. I'm not sure if Darksol's wall of text supports losing your action if you get ready-juked or not.
Sword, can you even see the rest of us from your vantage point on that moral high ground?
I'll be honest, it's getting hard to sort out the different positions. I'm not sure if Darksol's wall of text supports losing your action if you get ready-juked or not.
I will clarify that you do not lose your action. It is wasted the same way a concentration check on a spell is failed; that is, it goes off as if there was no effect (but the spell itself is treated as though it was cast normally).
This means that although the attack was treated as normal, it still affected an empty square (which, unless there was a creature there, invisible or otherwise), it did not have any effect against the intende target.
(For clarification purposes, which wall of text are you referring to? I have a feeling that I've made multiple of those, and am not sure which one is causing the confusion.)
Sword, can you even see the rest of us from your vantage point on that moral high ground?
I'll be honest, it's getting hard to sort out the different positions. I'm not sure if Darksol's wall of text supports losing your action if you get ready-juked or not.
Oh no. The view from up here is great. I have my rose tinted spectacles to look through if I need to squint ; )
I'll say now that Darksol has as valid an argument as mine. Rules as written are unhelpful. I'm not even sure about rules as intended (who is). I can see that a FAQ could as easily go one way as the other. You can tell that from the fact that so many people would play it differently on each side for the last 400+ posts. I do think there needs to be an answer so we know where we stand house ruling etc.
My version speeds up combat and is more realistic giving players/DMs reasonable expectations of the outcome of actions. While Darksols interpretation adds an extra tactical dimension that rewards reading the opponent and anticipating their actions. I think this will come down to how your group plays, what their dynamic is and how they get their kicks. It has been really interesting reading. We definitely shouldn't derail the thread with an argument about trap options.
Sword, can you even see the rest of us from your vantage point on that moral high ground?
I'll be honest, it's getting hard to sort out the different positions. I'm not sure if Darksol's wall of text supports losing your action if you get ready-juked or not.
I will clarify that you do not lose your action. It is wasted the same way a concentration check on a spell is failed; that is, it goes off as if there was no effect (but the spell itself is treated as though it was cast normally).
This means that although the attack was treated as normal, it still affected an empty square (which, unless there was a creature there, invisible or otherwise), it did not have any effect against the intende target.
(For clarification purposes, which wall of text are you referring to? I have a feeling that I've made multiple of those, and am not sure which one is causing the confusion.)
We are on the same page then, in that the attack still happens, it just now most likely (due to the ready) fails to include the guy you swung at. I'm uncertain if you recognize the legitimacy of taking a 5 ft. step during that attack (if you are allowed) in order to place the foe back in reach.
The wall of text to which I refer is the one hidden in spoilers in your most recent, that broke down nearly all options available to the martial combatants. While comprehensive, I was not quite sure the message you were going for. I will say, I myself noted the issues with cleave and the 'other direction bull rushes' and combined some feats in my own game. Improved/Greater Bull Rush affects Drag and Reposition. Cleave upgrades into Great Cleave at bab +4 and does not require adjacent targets, merely targets without an ally in between. Even with the changes (and allowing fighters to swap out their bonus combat feats each day with an hour training), I did not see them used often though.
Oh no. The view from up here is great. I have my rose tinted spectacles to look through if I need to squint ; )
I'll say now that Darksol has as valid an argument as mine. Rules as written are unhelpful. I'm not even sure about rules as intended (who is). I can see that a FAQ could as easily go one way as the other. You can tell that from the fact that so many people would play it differently on each side for the last 400+ posts. I do think there needs to be an answer so we know where we stand house ruling etc.
My version speeds up combat and is more realistic giving players/DMs reasonable expectations of the outcome of actions. While Darksols interpretation adds an extra tactical dimension that rewards reading the opponent and anticipating their actions. I think this will come down to how your group plays, what their dynamic is and how they get their kicks. It has been really interesting reading. We definitely shouldn't derail the thread with an argument about trap options.
Now, I am curious, what was your interpretation of the actual rules before your fix, The Sword? Again, I've been reading through our extensive posts, and I no longer know what anyone advances except (sadly) those that had the worst (and least supported) ideas.
These two pieces of text are what I'm looking at for my own view.
"Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action."
Aka, you take your action unless you are unconscious, dead, etc as a result of the readied action.
"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."
Specifically spells out that you can 5 ft. step.
And for what it's worth, the only feat options I consider outright traps are ones that advertise something they do not provide, like Prone Shooter or Elephant Stomp. Skill Focus (basketweaving) and Cleave might not be great, but they give you a bonus or let you do something you couldn't do before. As long as someone does not have false expectations for what the game will hold, feat choices are up to the player, not some higher body of Optimized Pathfinder Law.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And there are plenty of other tactics that might buy one round and that are just as nonproblematic as readying is.
If the kobold chucks a javelin from a distance and then runs away screaming his head off, it might cost his foe the very same round of actions, or maybe even a couple rounds, to catch up.
That's fine. So is this.
It's not really the same thing. The difference with readying the action is the target stays in place and then exploits the segmented nature of action resolution to generate a sure miss after there attack has been committed. The kobold chucking the javelin and running isn't waiting for his opponent's attack to be committed.
The kobold running away doesn't
1) stay in place to meat shield
2) Force anyone to waste their action doing their schtick
3) use any gray areas of the rules for 1 and 2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hold action. Person casts a spell, Run up to them, take AOO
Hold action, person fires a bow, run up to them, AOO, disarm
Hold action. Person walks from Square 1 to square 2 Run up and trip them. They can't takeback their action , draw the aoo, get tripped in place
Hold action. Person casts a spell, Run up to them, take AOO
Hold action, person fires a bow, run up to them, AOO, disarm
Hold action. Person walks from Square 1 to square 2 Run up and trip them. They can't takeback their action , draw the aoo, get tripped in place
What is the actual problem with any of these? You're just listing things you can accomplish in combat, given good rolls and advance knowledge of your enemy's actions.
What kind of spellcaster seriously doesn't know to be careful around people readying actions? Is this substabtially different than just readying an action to shoot him when he starts casting? Not that I can see. And he can possibly use his own 5' step to get away, once you've finished your readied action (depends on whether he already took other actions this round).
I guess you might get something out of the bow thing with a readied move, but nothing that seems to be an issue. If you're spending your turn to disrupt his, and if you've got enough of a power/level/whatever advantage that you can reliably disarm an archer (usually good CMD due to high Dex, middling Str, full bab), I don't see the problem with trading your turn for his. In addition to his CMD, same caveat with the 5' step.
Movement thing. Not really sure of the benefit but this is one of those ones that relies on you reading his mind. He decides to drink a potion? Tough luck, you handed him a free turn.
In general, if you see a foe holding his action, it is a good time to think 'if I were him, what would I have readied against?' The answer is actually usually pretty obvious.
I was playing a 15th level wizard recently, for example, and when in a combat somebody would hold an action, it was a safe bet that they were readying against spellcasting. It's a great time to lead with a quickened sacrificial lamb spell before dropping the spell I really wanted to cast. Too bad you wasted your turn to counter my magic missile, now suck on sunburst.
If you've just walked into the ring with the Minotaur and he snorts, grabs his axe, and... waits, it's a fair bet he's waiting for you to rush in. Great time to drink a potion of bull's strength instead, because by readying, he's given you the opportunity to gain a whole free turn if you can out-think him.
Any time someone readies an action against you, he is giving up the initiative in the hope that you will misuse it. Take a moment to think, and you can often make it cost him instead of you.
So conversely, any time you've got the prospect of gaining something by a readied action, it should be set against 'but I'm already going first... how confident am I that this will turn out better than doing something else to advance/win the fight on my turn?'
For your scenarios above, they each fail at least one of these two tests.
Coriat - how can you tell an enemy has readied an action, rather than delayed their initiative or just decided not to act? Are there obvious signs that I am missing?
Coriat - how can you tell an enemy has readied an action, rather than delayed their initiative or just decided not to act? Are there obvious signs that I am missing?
One obvious sign is if they do anything on their turn, since readying typically consists of
[move action] [standard to ready] while delay skips the turn entirely.
For instance, in the above, the Minotaur drew his axe (move) and then waited. Obviously a ready, then, not a delay.
The 'what would I do' is just as good at this as anything else, also. If you're facing a wizard, for example... are you more likely to ready vs spellcasting, or delay? Ready, right? Yeah. And he knows that too.
Coriat - how can you tell an enemy has readied an action, rather than delayed their initiative or just decided not to act? Are there obvious signs that I am missing?
The GM should tell you stuff like Creature A looks poised to strike, or Creature B is preparing some words of incantation. It's otherwise a major jerk move on the GM's part to not tell you that, as they are required to tell you what a creature does, especially if you can see them doing it (such as preparing an attack). But as Coriat says, the other key ingredient to determining whether they've readied or not is the lack of activity they've performed within their turn, and if it's a delay, then they wouldn't have acted at all; not even a 5-foot step or anything. It's really a judgement of causality and activity.
Picture this: When you're in a town, and you draw your sword, what do people think you're probably gonna do next? Start slicing them up. That's why if you do this in games like Skyrim and such, people freak out, and guards get anxious (they even outright say they are). It's important to remember that each action (usually) has a preface before going off, and if the action hasn't occurred yet, the preface would be a dead giveaway of what they're going to do next.
In the above example, if a Guard sees you drawing your sword in the confines of the city, chances are he's going to rush over and tell you to put the sword away (if this is the first time happening), or go and simply restrain you (if this isn't the first time happening, or you refuse to put away your sword). In regards to Spellcasting, if you draw out material components and start muttering incantations, people are probably going to think you're casting a spell, and serves as a proxy for when you start casting a spell. Similarly, if you see an enemy draw a Reach weapon, their first instinct is that they're going to lie in wait for you, using their superior range to their advantage. (That is the reason they acquired a Reach weapon.) If they do move up and attack you, then something is strange (and that usually means they aren't afraid of you getting in their supposed "dead zone").
Although this is ground-breaking in terms of opening what a character could do, all this does is break the original floor, which leads to a tunnel of multiple directions in which to go, and you have to use your sense of judgement in relation to the situation to determine what the best course of action for you (and for them) is.
What is the actual problem with any of these? You're just listing things you can accomplish in combat, given good rolls and advance knowledge of your enemy's actions.
Mechanics wise: They're outright better than doing it the other way.
If you move up and smack the wizard yes he takes the hit, but he still takes his full compliment of actions , probably including a 5 foot step back and whack you in the face.
If you move up and trip someone they have their full round action to deal with it, if you do it after they've moved even 5 feet they're on the ground with only a standard action to deal with it
Same with the disarm. Normally they could 5 foot away pick up the bow and still shoot you once. You'd need a feet to kick things quickly into your hand or a prehensile tail to stop that from happening.
Simulationist: You're pretty much teleporting into someone's face in between them putting their hand into their quiver and them putting it onto their bow. You're running the 40 yard dash in .005 seconds.
Balance: there's a whole step up and strike chain for doing exactly this sort of thing, you're handing it away for free.
Rules: And i can't stretch this enough, you're gaining those advantages off of a gray area in the rules. The rules are not nearly so explicit in how they handle the timing of this.
What kind of spellcaster seriously doesn't know to be careful around people readying actions? Is this substabtially different than just readying an action to shoot him when he starts casting? Not that I can see. And he can possibly use his own 5' step to get away, once you've finished your readied action (depends on whether he already took other actions this round).
No, he can't. That would be a take back. If the swordsman swinging at the dancing kobold can't 5 foot up to put the kobold back in range then the caster can't 5 foot step mid cast to get out of range of the teleporting fighter.
Movement thing. Not really sure of the benefit but this is one of those ones that relies on you reading his mind. He decides to drink a potion? Tough luck, you handed him a free turn.
Its really not that hard to figure out that the casters going to cast and bow guys going to shoot. Thats before you get into things like "i move up to him if he does anything but surrender.
It seems that for your arguments to have merit, one side has to act like complete idiots.
No. And you need to stop saying that, especially as you've been unable to show any smarter play to counter the alleged idiocy. "Oh look i have this great counter..." ... Show. Don't tell. You may have another absolutely horrible idea like going full defense and moving up for all anyone knows, or you may have slightly different ideas about how the mechanics are supposed to work.
Its going to the person and its getting REALLY insulting. If one kobold bodyguard can force a 20th level fighter to waste their turn with go full defense and move up or to get out of their preferred fighting style something has gone wrong.
It works any time melee Needs to move. This is not matter of player intelligence, character intelligence, or look how much better I am than you at this game melee needs to move. You are not an idiot because you move your melee character next to someone to swing at them. Thats just melee. You shouldn't have to play the dating game with the DM with everyone putting a readied action up their sleeve every round, but thats exactly what the dancing kobold interpretation leads to.
It works any time the melee is in one movement of ranged or casters. Given the dungeon based nature of the game, thats pretty often.
Readying to interrupt spellcasters is an excellent tactic. If they don't take that into consideration when casting, they deserve what they get.
Why should readying be useless against melee folk?
Because people with 30 foot movement speeds don't teleport across dungeons.
I'm going to pump my sword at the Kobold menacingly before completing my move action.
The kobold has readied action for your attack. Not your feint
Or alternatively, you're feinting, thats a standard action.
Pump fakes are ALREADY a part of the game. A character already does this without it being said.
|
I'm going to pump my sword at the Kobold menacingly before completing my move action.The kobold has readied action for your attack. Not your feint
Or alternatively, you're feinting, thats a standard action.
Pump fakes are ALREADY a part of the game. A character already does this without it being said.
How will the Kobold know I'm attacking? I'm not taking the Feint action. I will walk up to him and tell him I'm attacking him now, if that's better.
How will the Kobold know I'm attacking? I'm not taking the Feint action. I will walk up to him and tell him I'm attacking him now, if that's better.I'm going to pump my sword at the Kobold menacingly before completing my move action.The kobold has readied action for your attack. Not your feint
Or alternatively, you're feinting, thats a standard action.
Pump fakes are ALREADY a part of the game. A character already does this without it being said.
He's waiting for you to attack. Not to declare your attack.
There's no rules for a non action pump fake. The closest rule is the feint action, which is a standard action unless you have some other ability.
This is a huge problem: the players are going to have to guesse/learn what the dm wants for an action. You could also guesse wrong as to what the kobold is readying for. The DM both knows what actions are acceptable to ready against and what you're doing.
|
|
How will the Kobold know I'm attacking? I'm not taking the Feint action. I will walk up to him and tell him I'm attacking him now, if that's better.I'm going to pump my sword at the Kobold menacingly before completing my move action.The kobold has readied action for your attack. Not your feint
Or alternatively, you're feinting, thats a standard action.
Pump fakes are ALREADY a part of the game. A character already does this without it being said.
He's waiting for you to attack. Not to declare your attack.
There's no rules for a non action pump fake. The closest rule is the feint action, which is a standard action unless you have some other ability.
This is a huge problem: the players are going to have to guesse/learn what the dm wants for an action. You could also guesse wrong as to what the kobold is readying for. The DM both knows what actions are acceptable to ready against and what you're doing.
There isn't a rule for it. Just as the rules don't cover an attack declaration phase or changing your declared action after a ready or even the term "declared action." A lot of us agree that the rules are vague, most of us are okay with GM arbitration on readied actions, as covering every scenario would be very text intensive.
So BNW's argument against readying boils down to that it can be a good tactic. The game shudders at the thought.
He has chosen to ignore all the ways in which it can be countered, which have been brought up ad nauseum for his edification, which makes his declaration that other people 'need to stop saying that [argument that he feels he has addressed]' a touch ironic, bordering on obloquy. The upper hand held by the readied action is the essence of fugacity, as repeated gambles on the quality of one's round vs the potential quality of one's round are doomed to eventually swing in favor of the house. Often on the very first hand.
The archer example. "I ready a move action to run adjacent to the archer when he fires."
You are hoping to provoke an AoO from the archer, and hit him when he fires.
You could achieve this entire effect (move up to archer, hit archer) with your original, beat the archer in initiative action, except that he might be flat footed if you had acted immediately on your turn. So we're essentially at a net zero gain, slight negative. What are we potentially losing to achieve that?
1. The archer takes a non-ranged attack action, like drinking a potion. Utter loss of your turn.
2. The archer takes a full ranged attack action. (Or fires before moving) You trigger your move action, move adjacent, he uses his 5 ft. step allowed during his attack to move backwards out of your reach, you get no AoO. You've traded a full round action for a move action you could have taken anyways and reduced your initiative count to just before the archer's.
This tends to be typical of all of your examples, BNW. They don't hold water when you look at them in accordance with the rules and in actual play. The more combatants on the field, the less likely you are going to be able to predict how any given one will act that turn. Readying can be useful, but it is hardly the end all be all of combat that you seem to consider it.
The 'pump your sword menacingly' tactic is not worth the word count required to respond to it. Suffice to say that BNW accounted for its value (ie none whatsoever) admirably in his response to this non-action. I can only assume you brought up the concept sarcastically, ShieldLawrence.
This is getting ridiculus. Combatants are alredy considered to be moving back when getting attacked. Or is someone suggesting that they occupy a 5 foot large square just by standing still? Just how fat do you envision them?
A 5 foot steping back during someone else turn should not even be allowed without some special ability like Swash's.
But if you have readied to move out 5 ft when he attacks, it is then your interrupt turn when you're moving.
No, he can't. That would be a take back. If the swordsman swinging at the dancing kobold can't 5 foot up to put the kobold back in range then the caster can't 5 foot step mid cast to get out of range of the teleporting fighter.
if the fighter hasn't moved he is completely allowed to take a 5ft step during his swing to get the mobile back into reach. Did you miss the twenty posts talking about how they could do that? 5ft steps can be done during your other actions, so the caster is completely able to five ft away when the fighter moves to him
He has chosen to ignore all the ways in which it can be countered, which have been brought up ad nauseum for his edification
"Oh look i have this great counter..." ... Show. Don't tell. You may have another absolutely horrible idea like going full defense and moving up for all anyone knows, or you may have slightly different ideas about how the mechanics are supposed to work.<------ This is exactly what happened.
name one counter I have not addressed.
Your idea of "countered" leaves a lot to be desired. It still allows the side with more action economy almost total control over all actions taken. Yes, there are counters, but they're both horrible in their own right and themselves have counters that detract greatly from the game.
he archer example. "I ready a move action to run adjacent to the archer when he fires."
You are hoping to provoke an AoO from the archer, and hit him when he fires.
You could achieve this entire effect (move up to archer, hit archer) with your original, beat the archer in initiative action, except that he might be flat footed if you had acted immediately on your turn. So we're essentially at a net zero gain, slight negative. What are we potentially losing to achieve that?
And this is what happens when you don't pay attention.
Hold action, person fires a bow, run up to them, AOO,
Same with the disarm. Normally they could 5 foot away pick up the bow and still shoot you once. You'd need a feet to kick things quickly into your hand or a prehensile tail to stop that from happening.
You got the kind of action I suggested wrong, and then ignored exactly where I pointed out how it differed from what move up and hit would accomplish.
o BNW's argument against readying boils down to that it can be a good tactic. The game shudders at the thought.
No. With the dancing kobold interpretation it becomes THE tactic melee has to use. It turns the game into a weird guessing game where hits are decided by the players ability at rock scissor lizard paper Spock rather than the Die roll. It gives a huge advantage to sides with more action economy and gets in the way of a popular playstyle that already has trouble with a choice to either move or be effective.
The archer takes a full ranged attack action. (Or fires before moving) You trigger your move action, move adjacent, he uses his 5 ft. step allowed during his attack to move backwards out of your reach
Under the dancing kobold interpretation he cannot 5 foot step out of your way. He has committed to the attack action and must take the attack action before any other actions including the 5 foot step. Otherwise he has not attacked yet and your readied action hasn't gone off yet. Allowing a 5 foot step in response would be the takebacksies version, not the dancing kobold.
You think you have a counter here because of a slightly different rules interpretation than the one I'm arguing against.
This is getting ridiculus. Combatants are alredy considered to be moving back when getting attacked. Or is someone suggesting that they occupy a 5 foot large square just by standing still? Just how fat do you envision them?
A 5 foot steping back during someone else turn should not even be allowed without some special ability like Swash's.
This movement is not a 5-foot step.
The ability provides an AC bonus equal to your Charisma on the attack that you're triggering. It's specifically called out as not being a 5-foot step, and stating that the movement still provokes on all other creatures besides the one you're using the deed against. You can also use this ability, even when you've already moved in the round.
That's quite a few differences between that and a 5-foot step. Suggesting that they are the same thing is not only ludicrous, but blatantly false. You also can't feasibly combine them, as a 5-foot step can only be taken if you don't take any other movement in the round, and this would constitute as being movement, meaning once you use one, you can't use the other.
Besides, this wouldn't be the first time they made an ability that doesn't function any better than the standard that the RAW has presented, or is otherwise practically useless. Elephant Stomp, Charge Through, Monkey Lunge, and Prone Shooter all say hi.
Under the dancing kobold interpretation he cannot 5 foot step out of your way. He has committed to the attack action and must take the attack action before any other actions including the 5 foot step. Otherwise he has not attacked yet and your readied action hasn't gone off yet. Allowing a 5 foot step in response would be the takebacksies version, not the dancing kobold.
You think you have a counter here because of a slightly different rules interpretation than the one I'm arguing against.
You're not wrong, in that he still has to take the action if he is able. Nobody is arguing that. You're wrong, in that he can't do anything else with that action. Review the RAW again.
You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round.
The argument we're making is that, if the Archer did not move, and committed to a Full Attack Action against a readied action to move adjacent to the Archer, that Archer can still 5-foot step out of the enemy's reach and fire off a Full Attack without any repercussions before rolling the dice (which simulates the attack, and that causes the provocation). The downside is that now the Archer is open to a Full Attack next round, and is basically going to be smashed to pieces. The upside, is that he still gets his Full Attack off without provoking 5-6 times, and being dead before doing anything in the combat.
At this point, people are just now coming to terms with how powerful Readied Actions can be in regards to tactical advantages, and people don't like it because [reasons]. Readied Actions were made for the sole purpose of executing tactics that required the perfect timing, and now that people see what that can do, they don't like it, and want it nerfed. So now, the only readied action you can take now, is to stop a spell from being cast. Good job. That should just be its own action instead of it being a subset of something that otherwise has no freaking point of being a subset, because apparently 90% of it is busted and doesn't work the way people want it to.
He has chosen to ignore all the ways in which it can be countered, which have been brought up ad nauseum for his edification"Oh look i have this great counter..." ... Show. Don't tell. You may have another absolutely horrible idea like going full defense and moving up for all anyone knows, or you may have slightly different ideas about how the mechanics are supposed to work.<------ This is exactly what happened.
Yeah, except in your demonstration of how it was an "absolutely horrible idea" you failed to play it out past the kobold's next action - highly convenient because that's the point after which it goes sour for the kobold. Because you failed to have the kobold set up his anti-fighter defenses (and in fact, he can't anymore). Whoops.
If I recall, your response was to change the goalposts from a fighter-vs-kobold duel to a party-vs-group encounter. Which is fine (group battles are more commmon, after all), except that I asked you to show how the original kobold tactic is beneficial at all outside of a duel and you haven't.
Because we both realize that the nobody with a brain would try this in a group battle. I bring eight kobolds against four adventurers in that same good old open field as the duel, do you think I'm going to take eight readied actions when I know that at best the fighter will be attacking one kobold and triggering one readied action? Good job wasting 87% of my action economy in a best-case scenario. Or am I Kobold Nostradamus and can see into the future to know which of my soldiers the fighter will attack, so that only that kobold needs to ready?
Asking again for you to actually show how this plays out to kobold advantage in a group battle. Not context-free declarations like "I COULD make you waste a charge." Eight kobolds, four adventurers, open field. Not what could happen, show me what you do to make it actually happen, preferably without burning your action economy to the ground. Readied actions are prone to theorycrafting, I COULD do this, I COULD do that, but theorycrafting, as we all know, is prone to handwaving problems away.
Coriat: are you playing devils advocate or is this a tactic you use? If so is it as a DM or as a Player?
Coriat: are you playing devils advocate or is this a tactic you use? If so is it as a DM or as a Player?
First, using a rule or not has nothing to do with what the rule is saying. So by being on the side of the rule you're not devil's advocate nor must it be something you use in play.
Secondly he just explained why it's generally a poor idea to use this. Unless you're sure it'll go off, you have a chance if having you're action wasted because no one triggers it.
@ Coriat: I'm not sure that duelist post is particularly accurate.
Remember that although the Kobold did use his readied action and the enemy whiffed his attack for the first round, he's still ahead of the enemy for initiative, and can do the ready tactics again. He'd repeat this ad nauseum until he gets Natural 20's and kills the enemy, regardless of whether he has a Reach weapon or not.
We are beyond the question of what the rule says. It is inconclusive and parties have agreed to disagree.
This conversation has moved to what makes tactical sense and what is balanced in the game. It that regard it is absolutely possible to take a devils advocate position.
The reason I ask is because a lot of the arguments that people are vociferously putting forward (yourself included chess Pwn) is that the tactic is underpowered and unlikely to be used. In which case why make such a big deal about it?
I am interested in the motivation behind your arguments - is it as a DM or a Player or both.
To be fair Chess Pwn the question was directed at Coriat but feel free to answer for yourself at the same time.
@ Coriat: I'm not sure that duelist post is particularly accurate.
Remember that although the Kobold did use his readied action and the enemy whiffed his attack for the first round, he's still ahead of the enemy for initiative, and can do the ready tactics again. He'd repeat this ad nauseum until he gets Natural 20's and kills the enemy, regardless of whether he has a Reach weapon or not.
No, because BNW had him attack and then move, so he doesn't have an action left to ready with.
And even if he refrained from attacking, he moved on his turn, meaning that he cannot take a 5' step as part of a readied action.
Or if he doesn't move OR attack on his turn, he's adjacent, so when he adds a 5' step to his ready, the foe can then add a 5' step to his attack, and the tactic falls apart.
All roads lead to failure once your foe manages to end his turn adjacent to you.
Again - if instead of theorycrafting you actually play through these scenarios, making each decision at each step, then allowing the foe to react, and enforcing the restrictions* and allowing the options** that the game provides... the tactic is weak and easily dealt with.
* (like no 5' step in your ready after you moved on your turn)
** (like your foe adding a 5' step during his action if he hasn't moved that round)
Coriat: are you playing devils advocate or is this a tactic you use? If so is it as a DM or as a Player?
I am not playing devils advocate. The tactic is legal but I do sincerely consider it to fail to live up to the hype of invincibility. While it forms part of our group's arsenal of tactics and we all are aware of it (because we have used it with hero points, see below), nobody ever bothers to use it in regular play because it is generally not a good tactic in a non-theorycrafted fight.
The only time it has been worthwhile to use this tactic in a real fight is when spending a hero point to act out of turn. Diving out of the way just before the blade comes down, that sort of thing. Hero points allow you to act as if you had had a readied action even though you hadn't, so it avoids the whole 'have to read the enemy's mind' thing.
In that case, since a) I don't have to guess what's coming, b) I don't have to spend my actual turn on it, and c) it's cinematic, cool, and appropriate for hero points, I have used the tactic in my games.
@ Coriat: I'm not sure that duelist post is particularly accurate.
Remember that although the Kobold did use his readied action and the enemy whiffed his attack for the first round, he's still ahead of the enemy for initiative, and can do the ready tactics again. He'd repeat this ad nauseum until he gets Natural 20's and kills the enemy, regardless of whether he has a Reach weapon or not.
No, because BNW had him attack and then move, so he doesn't have an action left to ready with.
And even if he refrained from attacking, he moved on his turn, meaning that he cannot take a 5' step as part of a readied action.
Or if he doesn't move OR attack on his turn, he's adjacent, so when he adds a 5' step to his ready, the foe can then add a 5' step to his attack, and the tactic falls apart.
All roads lead to failure once your foe manages to end his turn adjacent to you.
Again - if instead of theorycrafting you actually play through these scenarios, making each decision at each step, then allowing the foe to react, and enforcing the restrictions* and allowing the options** that the game provides... the tactic is weak and easily dealt with.
* (like no 5' step in your ready after you moved on your turn)
** (like your foe adding a 5' step during his action if he hasn't moved that round)
How is he adjacent to make the attack though?
If I readied each turn to 5-foot and then execute an attack, the enemy, unless he can match my reach, will never be able to get an attack on me, because every time he would attack, I would 5-foot out of his reach, and he would have to spend a 5-foot step in order to reach me to execute his attack.
I'm not actually sure I understand your question, but it seems like you might be discussing a different scenario than BNW was (for example, reach? Are we evaluating for a scenario with polearms?). Can you clarify a bit what you are envisioning happening?
Or are you assuming that the kobold takes a 5' step back on his turn, then readies, and takes another 5' step back during the ready? That one doesn't work; he only gets one 5' step, so starting from adjacent, he either moves (no 5' step when ready time comes), or readies and 5' steps during the ready (leaving him in range of his opponent's 5' step).
The first caveat was what tripped BNW up when he would have had the kobold move back 30'.
You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don't otherwise move any distance during the round.