|
| 25 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
In another thread there seemed to be a lot of confusion and disagreement about immediate actions. Adjudicating immediate actions can get tricky, so let's try to come up with some user-friendly guidelines.
* Proposal #1: Let's accept that we probably cannot have a hard and fast rule that will cover all situations.
* Proposal #2: Just as with free actions, the GM should determine what immediate actions he or she feels are reasonable.
* Proposal #3: GMs should do their best to decide what to allow based on existing precedent.
On the other thread there was a lot of disagreement about whether or not an immediate action could be used as a spell is resolving. I think people are disagreeing because they see specific examples and want the answer to be either yes or no. Whether or not someone can respond to a spell during resolution should actually depend on the spell being cast.
Example A: Larry the Lich starts casting enervation. Walter the wizard identifies it using spellcraft. As the spell resolves, the Lich points at Walter and "a black ray of negative energy" streaks toward him. Walter casts emergency force sphere to block the ray. The ray shield combat feat could save a PC from enervation, so I believe Walter should get a chance to cast EFS.
Example B: Larry the Lich starts casting greater dispel magic. Walter the wizard identifies it using spellcraft. Walter waits to find out who Larry is going to target. Greater dispel magic resolves, and Walter gets his 3 highest level buffs dispelled. Walter doesn't find out that he's the target till it's too late, so I believe he should not get a chance to cast EFS.
What guidelines would you like to see for immediate actions?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With that in mind, I think you'll have to judge it on a case by case basis, because various abilities that say they're done as an immediate action list different moments. "When you are attacked" is clearly not the same as "when you are hit" - the latter can certainly be done at the last possible moment, while in the former case it can be argued that you have to make up your mind before knowing if the attack hits.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What guidelines would you like to see for immediate actions?
The big guideline that I use is that immediate actions are a response to something, but do not interrupt or prevent it.
Having said that, there are lots of badly-written rules where the developers seem to violate their own guidelines, and I do not feel obliged to respect those as a precedent.
1stly - good thread.
Example A: Larry the Lich starts casting enervation. Walter the wizard identifies it using spellcraft. As the spell resolves, the Lich points at Walter and "a black ray of negative energy" streaks toward him. Walter casts emergency force sphere to block the ray. The ray shield combat feat could save a PC from enervation, so I believe Walter should get a chance to cast EFS.Example B: Larry the Lich starts casting greater dispel magic. Walter the wizard identifies it using spellcraft. Walter waits to find out who Larry is going to target. Greater dispel magic resolves, and Walter gets his 3 highest level buffs dispelled. Walter doesn't find out that he's the target till it's too late, so I believe he should not get a chance to cast EFS.
I concur with both examples
What guidelines would you like to see for immediate actions?The big guideline that I use is that immediate actions are a response to something, but do not interrupt or prevent it.
That is how I rule it.
In cases of ambiguity, I use the golden-rule method. If I was a player, and it was ruled that way to ME, would I be OK with it?
In both examples provided above, I would not feel cheated as a player, and I'd know there was consistency (....of sorts...).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like most immediate actions specify how and when they apply ("after your ally fails a skill check you can allow them to reroll," "after a missed attack you can take a five foot step," "after the check is rolled but before the results are revealed," etc.), so it's only a few random abilities that need to be clarified. Some of the ones I'm most familiar with are clearly defensive abilities that are supposed to intercept or prevent attacks--emergency force sphere, the nomad (jaunting) psion's Evacuate ability--but they're written vaguely, probably because whoever wrote them assumed it was obvious how they'd work, so they can be either really useful or totally useless depending on how the GM rules it.
"Immediate action" by itself doesn't mean anything at all beyond "only one per round, doesn't have to be during your turn, can't also use a swift action that round;" anything beyond that should be included in the text of the ability.
But immediate actions dont allow someone to travel backwards in time.
My understanding is targets are determined after the spell is cast, ie it becomes to late to use an immediate action, the spell was already cast, again immediate does not mean retroactive.
You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.
From targeting:
You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
~~
So you could spellcraft to determine enervation is being cast and cast EFS, but you could not do it after you were targeted, because the spell was already cast. As far as I know Pathfinder doesn't have a robust 'stack' resolution like magic the gathering, immediatele actions occur before, but cannot time travel backwards.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feather fall is an immediate action. It interrupts falling.
This is a pretty good example of a physical non-magical interrupt that everyone can imagine (height of the drop notwithstanding).
The real issue that we need to keep in mind is that presumably some actions give you a moment to do something to interrupt (like falling a fair distance), and some actions are presumably either instantaneous or unnoticeable-until-it's-too-late (and effectively instantaneous). The rules almost never seem to make a distinction.
It seems to me that the answer to this is going to be an errata similar to how free actions work - that it's up to GM discretion with some general guidelines, and there's never going to be a full list of possible things that qualify or don't.
There is no harry potter esque Bolt of spell effect from a wand to see, block, or react to on targeted spells.
Yet anyway...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is how I handle it: every step in resolving something is a point you can use an immediate (or readied) action but some immediate actions are only useful in certain steps.
Example (note: I might be missing a step, this is just a quick example):
Enemy is casting a spell. (first step)
You use spellcraft and identify the spell. (second step)
Enemy's spell is finished and he targets "X". (third step)
Spell effect is resolved. (fourth step)
Now, you could disrupt the spell in steps one and two but by step three it is too late.
In step three you can do something to mess with the targeting (teleport away, throw up a wall, whatever).
In step four you could do something to mitigate the effect but it is too late to avoid the spell being cast and targeted at that person.
With all that said, there are no rules covering when immediate actions can occur. It is all a judgement call. Some immediate actions are useful at certain points while others are not. Thus it is more common sense rulings than anything else.
Any time means any time. If there is a moment in the sequence of events where a target has been selected that is part of "any time" because any time is tautologically any time.
Thats the crux of the matter. There's nothing to indicate that there is any time between the target being selected and the spell being in effect for a targeted spell.
A wide variety of spells explicitly describe something traveling such as fireball
Yes. But remember i said for a targeted spell.
cone of cold
No. We don't really know if the orc right in front of the wizards hand gets frozen first or if the entire area gets really really cold really really fast.
ray spells, and so on.
We don't know how fast the ray spell moves, if its light speed, paintball speed, or ludicris speed.
Spells which are blocked by line of effect can be inferred to have travel time or else could be cast through a glass window.
That does not follow at all. It could be instantaneous like magnetism or light or something.
This is why you shouldn't have immediate actions in the game unless you're already doing something, like rolling a saving throw or something.
1) How fast is an immediate action? Can it interrupt things?
2) What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow Fireall bead, cone of cold, ray? Is it slow enough for the EFS to block?
3) Is there any time between a targeting spell picking a target and the spell being in effect? Do they have a harry potter esque bolt or stunner? Is the visual effect created by the FAQ on spellcasting around the target as well as the caster?
While I don't have actual references on hand, I believe there are some feats and powers out there that specifically allow you to do things and interrupt at and in between various decision points (similar to what Gauss has listed).
And if such feats and powers exist, then it's reasonable that a well-worded readied action could accomplish the same thing.
Don't confuse a readied action with an immediate action, please. In fact, that, to me, is the key distinction.
|
To me we are defining two types actions but only give it one name. I think I would separate it in to two terms.
Immediate action - Happens out of turn but NOT during someone else's action.
New Action Type
Interrupt Action - This type of action takes place DURING someone else actions or during an event such as setting of a trap.
Granted with that being said I really wish we wouldn't add another action type but it seems we are heading down that road already.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me we are defining two types actions but only give it one name. I think I would separate it in to two terms.
Immediate action - Happens out of turn but NOT during someone else's action.
New Action Type
Interrupt Action - This type of action takes place DURING someone else actions or during an event such as setting of a trap.Granted with that being said I really wish we wouldn't add another action type but it seems we are heading down that road already.
The second type of action already exists -- it's called a "readied" action.
At the risk of repeating myself, immediate actions are a response to something, but do not interrupt or prevent it. If you want to interrupt/prevent an action, you need to ready an action against what you are trying to prevent.
The feather fall spell was mentioned above. That's a good example, actually. It does not prevent you from falling, nor does it interrupt your fall (you are still falling); it is cast as a response to your falling. What it prevents is a hard landing at the bottom.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If some people play Magic the gathering card game, for me immediate actions are like instant spells equivalent of this game.
That's exactly wrong -- in PF, the equivalent to the "instant" spells are readied actions, not immediate actions.
The capacity you describe -- interrupting someone's action -- already exists, but uses a different name and different mechanic.
Your situation would work like this:
Lich casts enervation -> Player #1 uses a readied action to interrupt spellcasting -> Lich's minion (typically can't take a standard and readied action in the same turn) takes readied action to interrupt player #1's action -> player #2 takes readied action to interrupt minion.
This would resolve in reverse order as you describe.
You're trying to overpower square pegs by letting them fit into round holes as well, thereby making round pegs unnecessary.
|
|
The second type of action already exists -- it's called a "readied" action.
At the risk of repeating myself, immediate actions are a response to something, but do not interrupt or prevent it. If you want to interrupt/prevent an action, you need to ready an action against what you are trying to prevent.
The feather fall spell was mentioned above. That's a good example, actually. It does not prevent you from falling, nor does it interrupt your fall (you are still falling); it is cast as a response to your falling. What it prevents is a hard landing at the bottom.
I am talking a newly made action. Ready action requires a player or PC to actually to take the ready action. What I am suggesting is that a new action be made to properly define this type of interrupting action as Feather Fall and EFS do require you to be readied.
I am talking a newly made action. Ready action requires a player or PC to actually to take the ready action. What I am suggesting is that a new action be made to properly define this type of interrupting action as Feather Fall and EFS do require you to be readied.
The second type of action already exists -- it's called a "readied" action.
No, neither feather fall nor emergency force sphere require you to be readied. But if you're not readied, you can't use either spell to interrupt or prevent someone else's action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the magic chapter:
You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.
This strongly suggests a lack of time in between the targeting and the effect in which to act.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We also have the human issue. I've had some GM's that are so quick that you don't have time to interrupt "after the check is rolled but before the results are revealed". In those case, you either need to allow some retroactivity, retrain the GM (which rarely works for long), or this table has eliminated most immediate actions.
Likewise, in PBP there's no good way to handle immediate actions without a little retroactivity. If the GM and players pause for every moment that an immediate action could be taken then it would drastically extend PBP.
|
|
We also have the human issue. I've had some GM's that are so quick that you don't have time to interrupt "after the check is rolled but before the results are revealed". In those case, you either need to allow some retroactivity, retrain the GM (which rarely works for long), or this table has eliminated most immediate actions.
Likewise, in PBP there's no good way to handle immediate actions without a little retroactivity. If the GM and players pause for every moment that an immediate action could be taken then it would drastically extend PBP.
This right here is why I think a new action needs to be define to help reduce table variations because I can easily see how these GM's makes these rulings even though it goes against the grain some spells.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Example A: Larry the Lich starts casting enervation. Walter the wizard identifies it using spellcraft. As the spell resolves, the Lich points at Walter and "a black ray of negative energy" streaks toward him. Walter casts emergency force sphere to block the ray. The ray shield combat feat could save a PC from enervation, so I believe Walter should get a chance to cast EFS.
Example B: Larry the Lich starts casting greater dispel magic. Walter the wizard identifies it using spellcraft. Walter waits to find out who Larry is going to target. Greater dispel magic resolves, and Walter gets his 3 highest level buffs dispelled. Walter doesn't find out that he's the target till it's too late, so I believe he should not get a chance to cast EFS.
Perhaps I am missing something, but I see no reason for these two situations to be resolved differently. Either this immediate action can be done between a spells completion and it's effect taking place or it can't. The difference between targeting with a ray and targeting with another type of spell doesn't seem relevant to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Example A: Larry the Lich starts casting enervation. Walter the wizard identifies it using spellcraft. As the spell resolves, the Lich points at Walter and "a black ray of negative energy" streaks toward him. Walter casts emergency force sphere to block the ray. The ray shield combat feat could save a PC from enervation, so I believe Walter should get a chance to cast EFS.
Example B: Larry the Lich starts casting greater dispel magic. Walter the wizard identifies it using spellcraft. Walter waits to find out who Larry is going to target. Greater dispel magic resolves, and Walter gets his 3 highest level buffs dispelled. Walter doesn't find out that he's the target till it's too late, so I believe he should not get a chance to cast EFS.
Perhaps I am missing something, but I see no reason for these two situations to be resolved differently. Either this immediate action can be done between a spells completion and it's effect taking place or it can't. The difference between targeting with a ray and targeting with another type of spell doesn't seem relevant to me.
The difference is that in the first example, they triggered on being targeted. The result of the attack wasn't announced. On the second, they triggered it after multiple checks were rolled and Walter knew the result.
Since an immediate action requires using resources, there's a difference if you can choose to use it after the results are rolled.
|
|
Example A: Larry the Lich starts casting enervation. Walter the wizard identifies it using spellcraft. As the spell resolves, the Lich points at Walter and "a black ray of negative energy" streaks toward him. Walter casts emergency force sphere to block the ray. The ray shield combat feat could save a PC from enervation, so I believe Walter should get a chance to cast EFS.
Example B: Larry the Lich starts casting greater dispel magic. Walter the wizard identifies it using spellcraft. Walter waits to find out who Larry is going to target. Greater dispel magic resolves, and Walter gets his 3 highest level buffs dispelled. Walter doesn't find out that he's the target till it's too late, so I believe he should not get a chance to cast EFS.
The difference is that in the first example, they triggered on being targeted. The result of the attack wasn't announced. On the second, they triggered it after multiple checks were rolled and Walter knew the result.
Since an immediate action requires using resources, there's a difference if you can choose to use it after the results are rolled.
Sure, if he doesn't use the immediate action until the dispel attempts begin to be resolved then it's too late. However, I have bolded the part that I think is relevant. This is suggesting that in the case of the greater dispel magic spell there is some difference in targeting than there was for the ray spell.
I am just saying that it has to be one way or the other. Either he has to decide for both spells to use an immediate action to cast EFS while the opponents spell is being cast but before it resolves (when the target is chosen) or in both cases he has the option to wait until he has been targeted and then cast EFS as an immediate action.
The problem here is that we are only looking at EFS as an immediate action.
let's look at some other immediate actions and see how they interact, bot by RAW and RAI.
It will give us better insight into the nature of immediate actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At any time means at any time.
How is there any ambiguity here?
Both readied actions and opportunity actions are capable of interrupting, I'm failing to see how Immediates are any different other than, "because I don't like it and don't think they should."
You only get one a round and it eats up your swift for the following turn.
Additionally, I haven't looked at EFS, but wouldn't it be incredibly stupid to have a spell that you're supposed to be able to cast in an Emergency (being the target of an attack for instance?) and it not working for that? Also, characters have limits on the number of spells they have per day if this spell is the "problem". Don't allow 15-minute adventuring days.
This seems both incredibly non-problematic *AND* extremely clear to me.
One interpretation allows the spell to function properly and fits the wording of the rules.
The other makes the spell non-functional and does not follow the rules.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At any time means at any time. It follows that if there is not time, you cannot take the action.
If there is not time between targeting and effect (such as with some spells), you could not interrupt between those steps.
You can still cast in response to an enemy casting, but they may choose their target once the spell completes.
Any time is any time but at no time does it mean no time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pictures someone casting EFS while falling
They drop through the bottom
The field lands on their head.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This does not appear to be an actual rules question, but an advice question and/or house rules suggestion.
Spell targeting, and spell effect are one and the same thing. If one is occurring, the other is also occurring. I would not allow casting of EFS (or any other immediate action that doesn't provide explicit rules to allow it) to take place between the two. Just like I would not allow an immediate action between being hit by a weapon and taking damage from said weapon without a specific rule allowing it.
Its a rules question. I've seen a lot of variation on it and similar things. I think splitting the atom of target choice and effect is a very clear no, but the other surrounding issues are kinda weird.
I know how I think this should work, but rather than adding my two cents and then watching as no consensus is forthcoming, I'm going to FAQ and move on.
There is no ambiguity, and I am not making up rules, please remove the vitriol and insinuations on intention. I am looking at the rules in place. Now, the difference between readied actions, attacks of opportunity, and immediate actions. I have spoilered to make the quotes from the PRD easier to read.At any time means at any time.
How is there any ambiguity here?
Both readied actions and opportunity actions are capable of interrupting, I'm failing to see how Immediates are any different other than, "because I don't like it and don't think they should."
Apologies, I didn't mean to come across as vitriolic, and I certainly wasn't aiming my comments at any person in particular.
I did (and do) however, wish to express bewilderment.
This does not appear to be an actual rules question, but an advice question and/or house rules suggestion.
Spell targeting, and spell effect are one and the same thing. If one is occurring, the other is also occurring. I would not allow casting of EFS (or any other immediate action that doesn't provide explicit rules to allow it) to take place between the two. Just like I would not allow an immediate action between being hit by a weapon and taking damage from said weapon without a specific rule allowing it.
How about being *targeted* by a weapon before the attack roll is made?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the swashbuckler deed dodging panache is important here. It is an immediate action which interrupts an attack in progress to gain a dodge bonus to ac. The attack cannot be adjusted or adjusted or retargeted, the deed happens during the attack action. Immediates are capable of interupting an attack.
I think the swashbuckler deed dodging panache is important here. It is an immediate action which interrupts an attack in progress to gain a dodge bonus to ac. The attack cannot be adjusted or adjusted or retargeted, the deed happens during the attack action. Immediates are capable of interupting an attack.
But note that that ability just makes the attack harder. it specifically doesn't stop the attack from happening even though you're moving out of the square being attacked.
Immediate actions seem to come while the die is bouncing around on the table, but don't prevent the action itself.
|
|
I think the swashbuckler deed dodging panache is important here. It is an immediate action which interrupts an attack in progress to gain a dodge bonus to ac. The attack cannot be adjusted or adjusted or retargeted, the deed happens during the attack action. Immediates are capable of interupting an attack.
Nobody is suggesting otherwise.
They are suggesting that for spells that do not include an attack action, targeting and effect are the same step. And as such, cannot be disjointed.
Other immediate actions that trigger on spells, trigger when you are affected, not when you are targeted.
I think the swashbuckler deed dodging panache is important here. It is an immediate action which interrupts an attack in progress to gain a dodge bonus to ac. The attack cannot be adjusted or adjusted or retargeted, the deed happens during the attack action. Immediates are capable of interupting an attack.
I think, more importantly, Dodging Panache has a specific trigger. When we talk about Emergency Force Sphere, it has no specific trigger, so we need to know precisely how Immediate Actions work. Dodging Panache says "under this exact circumstance and no others, you may do this thing as an Immediate Action." As is frequently said, specific trumps general and we know specifically what Dodging Panache is all about.