| 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.
Pretty sure this is the house rule here.
Immediate actions are reactions you can trigger at any time.
That means someone casting a spell on you or attacking you, you just say stop - immediate action: puff EFS goes off - spell or attack hit EFS instead. No retargeting either.
Anything else would make immediate actions and this spell as well as a lot of other stuff obsolote.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Oh, I think there are some legitimate rules questions regarding immediate actions. I just don't think the OP put it into that context.
Adjudicating immediate actions can get tricky, so let's try to come up with some user-friendly guidelines.
Is not a rules question. Its a house rules and/or advice of some ways to handle immediate actions given the current lack of clarity regarding some rules interactions.
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.
Pretty sure this is the house rule here.
Immediate actions are reactions you can trigger at any time.
That means someone casting a spell on you or attacking you, you just say stop - immediate action: puff EFS goes off - spell or attack hit EFS instead. No retargeting either.Anything else would make immediate actions and this spell as well as a lot of other stuff obsolote.
Note the bolded part. When I state "I would not...." that pretty clearly indicates I'm not stating it is what the rules say. I'm stating that is how I would run it - which comes because of a lack of clear direction in the rules. My reading of the rules tells me that would not be allowed based on the wording of spell targeting that others have already referenced in this thread - but I understand that others might view it differently.
Pretty sure this is the house rule here.
It very much is not a house rule. Its the interpretation with the most rules support.
Immediate actions are reactions you can trigger at any time.
At what time are you the target but not under the effect? They happen at the same time. So if you are chosen as the target you are under the effect. There is no time in between one and the other to throw up the field. You have to do it before or after because there is no such thing as during.
That means someone casting a spell on you or attacking you, you just say stop - immediate action: puff EFS goes off - spell or attack hit EFS instead. No retargeting either.
That isn't a houserule either but its the interpretation with both the most problematic game results and the least amount of evidence.
How about being *targeted* by a weapon before the attack roll is made?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.
Yes. There is clear precedent in other parts of the rules that someone making an attack (but has not yet rolled the dice) can be interrupted for various reasons.
Note though that weapon attacks is not what is being discussed. There are different rules regarding physical combat then there are magical effects. There are some parallels, there are also some divergences. Suggesting that one should work like the other needs rules precedent if you want to argue down that path. If you can show precedent, we can discuss this further, if you can't its a strawman.
Yes. There is clear precedent in other parts of the rules that someone making an attack (but has not yet rolled the dice) can be interrupted for various reasons.
I know of actions that can alter the attack but not stop it.
Yes. There is clear precedent in other parts of the rules that someone making an attack (but has not yet rolled the dice) can be interrupted for various reasons.
I know of actions that can alter the attack but not stop it.
Any action that would make you no longer a valid target, or disables the attacker would stop it.
Examples:
EFS (if you believe that an immediate action can interrupt another characters action - I do)
Teleport/DD away with a readied action. Or readied action to move away (but let's not get into the dancing kobold 5' step discussion, lets just keep it simple as a readied action to move 30').
AoO due to unarmed strikes or unimproved combat maneuver.
EFS (if you believe that an immediate action can interrupt another characters action - I do)
Teleport/DD away with a readied action. Or readied action to move away (but let's not get into the dancing kobold 5' step discussion, lets just keep it simple as a readied action to move 30')
Cart before the horse there
The EFS is what triggered the discussion. Throwing the shield only stops the attack if there's time in between the targeting and the effect. Otherwise its altered to be a new target. Saying its a known example of stopping an attack to prove that it stops the attack is circular.
teleporting away works on the same principle (assuming you're out of sight/range)
If you've hit a dancing kobold with a rules interpretation thats probably a hint that you've gone the wrong way.
AoO due to unarmed strikes or unimproved combat maneuver.
AoOs have their own order of operations
|
Examples:
EFS (if you believe that an immediate action can interrupt another characters action - I do)
Teleport/DD away with a readied action. Or readied action to move away (but let's not get into the dancing kobold 5' step discussion, lets just keep it simple as a readied action to move 30').
AoO due to unarmed strikes or unimproved combat maneuver.
EFS is the spell under consideration, it's not a useful example.
Readied actions and AoOs both specifically allow interrupts, and occur before their triggers.
Attacks have a "swing time" that allows for an immediate action to intervene (after an attack has been rolled, but results haven't been determined; or after a hit is confirmed, but damage has not been rolled).
Spell effects that are not also attacks do not have a "swing time," target and effect are the same action. If there is no time to act, you cannot take an action.
Examples:
EFS (if you believe that an immediate action can interrupt another characters action - I do)
Teleport/DD away with a readied action. Or readied action to move away (but let's not get into the dancing kobold 5' step discussion, lets just keep it simple as a readied action to move 30').
AoO due to unarmed strikes or unimproved combat maneuver.
Readied actions and AoOs both specifically allow interrupts, and occur before their triggers.
The point is these show there is rules precedent that show physical attacks can be interrupted. These same rules could also be used to show precedent that a spell in the process of being cast can be interrupted. There is no precedent to show that upon a spells completion you can interrupt between the completion of the spell and when the spell takes effect.
If you've hit a dancing kobold with a rules interpretation thats probably a hint that you've gone the wrong way.
I agree whole heartedly, just from a completely different angle than you. :) But you and I have had this discussion before, its why I asked that we not rehash that particular aspect of it here.
You ignored the second point: I can ready an action to move 30' if I am attacked and invalidate the attack (or teleport, or do something else that makes me no longer a valid target)? I'm not here to discuss the specifics of readied actions in particular, I'm here to discuss precedent showing that physical attacks can be interrupted, but spell completion/targeting have no such rules support allowing them to be separated in that fashion (which I believe you agree with).
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.
Step three is still a time. Part of the ultimate phrase "ANY TIME" which means it's interrupt-able.
Saying once you chose a target is absurd because it's illogical and pointlessly silly.
Let's say A and B are players with E as enemies and X as empty square and we'll call it an archer for the sake of simplicity.
AXXXXEXXXXXB
Archer is looking at wizard B when he draws his arrows and EFS to save himself then the archer snaps 180 just before letting multiple arrows fly into A.
There are by the laws and rules of casting clear visual and auditory effects including effects to determine the direction of casting as wizards know to exact geometric coordinates. Spending a life of geometic fire cubing as a wizard would grant him intimate knowledge of knowing if the 3rd finger up or half up meant 3 squares or 4.
As you pointed out in 4 steps there are more steps before "The effect is resolved". At any point before "The effect is resolved" Is a valid...
Undone, you have completely failed to understand what I wrote.
How do I know that? Because you think that I said you cannot use EFS during "step three". You absolutely can.What I wrote was you cannot disrupt the spell during step three. That is completely different. Why can't you disrupt it? Because it is cast already and the opportunity for disruption has passed.
Please try to read what I wrote rather than taking a single line out of context.
I agree whole heartedly, just from a completely different angle than you. :) But you and I have had this discussion before, its why I asked that we not rehash that particular aspect of it here.
If you've hit a dancing kobold with a rules interpretation thats probably a hint that you've gone the wrong way.
Well we finally found a way to hit a dancing kobold...
You ignored the second point: I can ready an action to move 30' if I am attacked and invalidate the attack (or teleport, or do something else that makes me no longer a valid target)? I'm not here to discuss the specifics of readied actions in particular, I'm here to discuss precedent showing that physical attacks can be interrupted
But that precident is itself partially on questionable rules grounds so i don't think it makes the best anchoring point.
Fighter:I move up and swing!
Kobold: My readied action goes off and i move away 30 feet
How exactly this resolves is a little unknown.
but spell completion/targeting have no such rules support allowing them to be separated in that fashion (which I believe you agree with).
Eyup. no splitting the atom.
You ignored the second point: I can ready an action to move 30' if I am attacked and invalidate the attack (or teleport, or do something else that makes me no longer a valid target)?
For the third(?) (fourth?) time, please do not confuse readied actions with immediate actions.
Readied actions can explicitly interrupt other actions in progress. There is not such ability given to immediate actions.
You ignored the second point: I can ready an action to move 30' if I am attacked and invalidate the attack (or teleport, or do something else that makes me no longer a valid target)?For the third(?) (fourth?) time, please do not confuse readied actions with immediate actions.
Readied actions can explicitly interrupt other actions in progress. There is not such ability given to immediate actions.
Mentioning them doesn't mean I think they are the same thing. Understanding how rules work for them can help give possible insight into how immediate actions are intended to work though.
For the first time :) don't complain about something when you don't understand why it is being brought up.
|
|
Considering you can use an immediate action while dying at any time means ANY time. Hero's defiance being a strong example that further points to allowing it because frankly going to negatives is faster than the delay between casting as spell and targeting.
1. Hero's Defiance specifically calls out when it can be used.
2. The damage step is somewhat different from the target/effect step. There are many abilities that trigger when health drops below 0. There are far fewer abilities that suggest the target/effect step is somehow two separate points in time.
Mentioning them doesn't mean I think they are the same thing. Understanding how rules work for them can help give possible insight into how immediate actions are intended to work though.You ignored the second point: I can ready an action to move 30' if I am attacked and invalidate the attack (or teleport, or do something else that makes me no longer a valid target)?For the third(?) (fourth?) time, please do not confuse readied actions with immediate actions.
Readied actions can explicitly interrupt other actions in progress. There is not such ability given to immediate actions.
Please do not confuse readied actions with immediate actions. The mechanics is not the same and there is no reason to believe that an analysis of readied actions will provide any insight into a completely different game rule.
Otherwise, you're basically saying "Hey, red dragons can breath fire; this will help give possible insight into how an elf's breath weapon is intended to work."
Any argument that involves a statement like "readied actions work in this way; therefore immediate actions should ..." is an immediate example of the Argument by Amazingly Bad Analogy fallacy. As Dave Barry put it, "you can teach a dog to fetch a stick, [but that doesn't mean] you can teach a potato to dance."
Just as a point. If there is a time, it is a subset of ANY time similar to how the R key is a subset of any key.Considering you can use an immediate action while dying at any time means ANY time. Hero's defiance being a strong example that further points to allowing it because frankly going to negatives is faster than the delay between casting as spell and targeting.1. Hero's Defiance specifically calls out when it can be used.
2. The damage step is somewhat different from the target/effect step. There are many abilities that trigger when health drops below 0. There are far fewer abilities that suggest the target/effect step is somehow two separate points in time.
Any logically existing point in time. A time machine would let me travel to see the asteroid take out the dinos or see the signing of the declaration of indepence. It would not let me travel to see the dinosaurs signing the declaration of indepndence, or a time when there were flowering plants but no mammals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At least one member of my local PFS VO group has been looking into this issue a bit more. EFS appears to be written in a very strange way for a spell with a casting time of an immediate action. Just flipping through Hero Lab:
Feather Fall: something is falling
Liberating Command: someone is bound, grappled, or restrained
Stone Shield: while not explicitly stated as a condition, the effect portion mentions "if the opponent's attack misses you..."
Wave Shield: you are being affected by a physical or fire attack
Windy Escape: "You respond to an attack..."
Bouyancy: someone or something is in water at least 1 foot deep
Bleed for your Master: "When you would be hit by an attack that requires an attack roll"
Collaborative Thaumaturgy: "Cast this spell when an ally casts a spell at least 1 level lower than the highest-level spell she can cast."
Deflect Blame: "You can cast this spell immediately after attacking a creature"
Conjuration Foil: Not explicitly stated, but its effects revolve around teleportation or summoning effects.
Energy Hack: "You can cast this spell only when you take 10 or more points..."
Die for your Master: Same as Bleed for your Master
Open Arms: "You cast this spell in response to..."
Those are just what are coming off of the Sorc/Wiz list. By comparison, the only guidance we have from EFS is this:
Normally this spell is used to buy time for
dealing with avalanches, floods, and
rockslides, though it is also handy in
dealing with ambushes.
Obviously, this is not a restriction that anyone intends to hold the spell to - it's FAR too narrow and wouldn't even work during ambushes in which you aren't aware or haven't yet acted since you can't take an immediate action while flat-footed.
While immediate actions are defined as being done "at any time," I think that is meant to mean exactly what the following statement says: "even when it's not your turn." If a spell or ability specifies a trigger condition or state, then that trigger condition or state supercedes the normal rules for actions. Splitting an action into constituent parts seems to be against the spirit of the rules, save for full round actions, which explicitly state that you can perform free or swift actions during them.
It looks like it was supposed to be "when you're caught in a tunnel collapse you man...." but became one stop shopping for swift action nyah nyah can't hit me!"
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 19 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
FAQ:
When exactly can I activate Arcane Shield?
Benefit: As a immediate action, you can sacrifice a prepared spell or unused spell slot of 1st level or higher and gain a deflection bonus to AC equal to the level of the spell or spell slot you sacrificed for 1 round. 0-level spells may not be sacrificed in this manner.
Can it be after hit but before damage?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
This post (my last post) is a clear and concise question on an option in Advanced Players Guide that the dev team can answer. Please everyone click on this post for FAQ.
FAQ:
When exactly can I activate Arcane Shield?
Benefit: As a immediate action, you can sacrifice a prepared spell or unused spell slot of 1st level or higher and gain a deflection bonus to AC equal to the level of the spell or spell slot you sacrificed for 1 round. 0-level spells may not be sacrificed in this manner.Can it be after hit but before damage?
** spoiler omitted **
Since the spell doesn't say that you interrupt anything, you can do it at any time, but you cannot do it to affect an attack upon you unless you take the immediate action prior to the attack.
|
One thing to keep in mind with the Magic: The Gathering note is that MtG has a very specific concept of time that is hard-baked into the rules: specifically, the stack. Whenever an effect happens (usually, a spell is cast) it goes on the stack. Most things cannot happen while an effect is on the stack. Some things, especially instants (formerly interrupts) can be cast while there are effects on the stack. They go on top of the stack. You can keep doing this ad infinitum, but once nobody has any further responses (nothing is getting added to the stack), you start resolving the stack, top (most recently cast) to bottom (oldest). In this way, you can react to something before it happens. (That's a little simplistic but you get the idea.)
Some immediate actions are specifically stated to work this way. So are some "free" actions or things that are not an action. Many other immediate actions are not. Pathfinder doesn't have a "stack" so there's no inherent reason why we should expect that immediate actions work like MtG's instants; the arrow of time may simply always be moving forward. We do know that readied actions are considered to work this way. Depending on GM, initiatives can work this way, but that's a whole other barrel of monkeys.
Question 1: can immediate actions "go back in time" to the point where a character may use one to interrupt or interfere with an action that has already been announced?
I tend to lean no, since Pathfinder doesn't have a stack, but readied actions do this so it's not an insane thing to ask.
Question 2: especially if the answer to question 1 is "no", where in the process of spellcasting may an immediate action be used?
Off the top of my head spellcasting looks like this, with the intervals labeled with numbers to identify them later:
Begin Spellcasting --(1)-> Finish Spellcasting --(2)-> Select Targets --(3)-> Spell Resolves --(4)-> Determine (Some) Variables
Can you take an immediate action at 1? (Answer is clearly yes, I think. Example: counterspelling.)
Can you take an immediate action at 2? (Answer seems probably yes, but up for debate.)
Can you take an immediate action at 3? (Answer seems strongly disputed, up for debate.)
Can you take an immediate action at 4? (My reading of the rules leans strongly no, but not everyone agrees; up for debate.)
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the spell doesn't say that you interrupt anything, you can do it at any time, but you cannot do it to affect an attack upon you unless you take the immediate action prior to the attack.
I don't agree, can you please click on my FAQ post in this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
James,
I don't think your question as posed will work.
AC doesn't change an attack that has already hit into a miss (after hit but before damage per your question). You have to increase your ac prior to the attack for that to work.
What are you trying to accomplish with a change in AC post-hit?
James, the question seems trapish. IE, you're asking one thing and think it leads to something else thats you're real question.
|
|
FAQ:
When exactly can I activate Arcane Shield?
Benefit: As a immediate action, you can sacrifice a prepared spell or unused spell slot of 1st level or higher and gain a deflection bonus to AC equal to the level of the spell or spell slot you sacrificed for 1 round. 0-level spells may not be sacrificed in this manner.Can it be after hit but before damage?
My answer to this is no. You can take your immediate action after the attack die is rolled, but before the result is announced (a time that is referenced in many other abilities).
I don't think this rules analogy can be stretched to include targeted spells. But, it would apply to spells which have an effect that is an attack roll.
|
You can not ready an action with the trigger "When they hit me with their sword" to prevent them from hitting you with the sword. So I think the question is moot.
You could ready vs being attacked and achieve that goal. But not vs having already been hit. So I think it is ridiculous to want an immediate action to be able to do that.
Now, you could ready vs "When they hit me with their sword" to up your HP with a spell before they deal damage.
"When they hit me with their sword" really equates to "when they deal damage" as being hit with a sword is a resolution of an action(being attacked with a sword) and not an action itself. But being hit with a sword is resolved to "damage done". So you interrupt the damage done.
Say in the case where you choose to teleport away after being hit with the sword. You interrupt their dealing damage. But as you teleporting away does not prevent them from finishing their action, dealing damage, they still get to roll. This can make you fall unconscious wherever you teleported to.
Let us go with the spell example!
If someone casts dominate person at you and you are asked to roll a will save you could have readied an action to cast a spell if you are hit with a spell.
If you cast EFS it would not prevent the spell hitting you as it already has. But you could cast Protection From Evil before you roll your will save. You've interrupted the resolution of the spell and have done something effective vs it in that case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please do not confuse readied actions with immediate actions. The mechanics is not the same and there is no reason to believe that an analysis of readied actions will provide any insight into a completely different game rule.
Otherwise, you're basically saying "Hey, red dragons can breath fire; this will help give possible insight into how an elf's breath weapon is intended to work."
Any argument that involves a statement like "readied actions work in this way; therefore immediate actions should ..." is an immediate example of the Argument by Amazingly Bad Analogy fallacy. As Dave Barry put it, "you can teach a dog to fetch a stick, [but that doesn't mean] you can teach a potato to dance."
You're kinda missing the point, Orfamay.
No one is claiming that readied actions and immediate actions are the same thing.
No. People -- including you -- are claiming that they work the same way, which is patent nonsense.
Case in point:
What people are saying is that if there's a point in time when a readied action could be used to accomplish something, an immediate actions can also be used at that very same point in time as the rules say immediate actions can be used at any time.
... and this is blatantly and obviously wrong, because readied actions explicitly interrupt the triggering action, even if it's instantaneous. I can, for example, "ready" an action to throw myself behind a pillar if a bomb goes off, despite the fact that a bomb explosion is for all intents and purposes instantaneous (C4 explodes at 27,000 feet per second or something ridiculous like that).
A readied action can literally go back in time to before the triggering event occurs in order to, among other things, prevent the triggering event from happening in the first place. ("I ready an action to cast create water on the dynamite when it goes off, preventing the explosion.")
An immediate action has no such time-travel capacity.
At the risk of repeating myself, "there is no reason to believe that an analysis of readied actions will provide any insight into a completely different game rule." Specifically, the idea that because you can accomplish something with a readied action, you can accomplish the same thing with a well-timed immediate action is simply false -- and directly contradicts the rule text. The capacity of readied actions to travel in time is explicit in the rules: "[Y]ou may take the readied action in response to [a condition]. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it." (This is time travel in a quite literal sense -- the effect explicitly occurs "just before" the cause. Physicists call this "causality violation.")
There is no such time travel provision in the rules for immediate actions, therefore immediate actions are not capable of time travel.
Since readied actions can go backwards in time, and immediate actions cannot, there is literally no reason to believe that immediate actions can substitute for readied actions. Readied actions have capacities (causality violation) that immediate actions do not.
So, Please do not confuse readied actions with immediate actions while pretending not to do so. Please do not even mention readied actions again until you have actually read and understood the rules for readied actions.
For example on inspiration
This choice is made after the check is rolled and before the results are revealed.There is a point in time in which after dice are rolled other effects can be applied otherwise effects such as inspiration.
No, there isn't. Inspiration is another time-traveling ability. Besides, specific trumps general.... the fact that they find it necessary to enable this usage in this specific case demonstrates that, in general, this is not a capacity that is always allowed.
I don't see how else people are expected to use some effects.
Well, in the case of emergency force sphere, the expected use case is listed in the text of the spell itself.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please do not confuse readied actions with immediate actions. The mechanics is not the same and there is no reason to believe that an analysis of readied actions will provide any insight into a completely different game rule.
Otherwise, you're basically saying "Hey, red dragons can breath fire; this will help give possible insight into how an elf's breath weapon is intended to work."
Any argument that involves a statement like "readied actions work in this way; therefore immediate actions should ..." is an immediate example of the Argument by Amazingly Bad Analogy fallacy. As Dave Barry put it, "you can teach a dog to fetch a stick, [but that doesn't mean] you can teach a potato to dance."
You're kinda missing the point, Orfamay.
No one is claiming that readied actions and immediate actions are the same thing.
No. People -- including you -- are claiming that they work the same way, which is patent nonsense.
Case in point:
What people are saying is that if there's a point in time when a readied action could be used to accomplish something, an immediate actions can also be used at that very same point in time as the rules say immediate actions can be used at any time.... and this is blatantly and obviously wrong, because readied actions explicitly interrupt the triggering action, even if it's instantaneous. I can, for example, "ready" an action to throw myself behind a pillar if a bomb goes off, despite the fact that a bomb explosion is for all intents and purposes instantaneous (C4 explodes at 27,000 feet per second or something ridiculous like that).
A readied action can literally go back in time to before the triggering event occurs in order to, among other things, prevent the triggering event from happening in the first place. ("I ready an action to cast create water on the dynamite when it goes off, preventing the explosion.")
An immediate...
You have a much different view of Readied actions than I. Yes, readied actions happen before the action that triggered it... sort of. Here is a break down of what happens really...
For the dynamite example... if you readied versus the dynamite exploding you are really readying versus the resolution of the dynamite exploding, not it exploding. Thus you could put up fire resistance, but not put out the now exploded dynamite. Just as you can't really ready versus someone hitting you with a sword, as you'd really be readying versus the resolution of you being hit with the sword. But you can ready versus them swinging the sword whose resolution is rolling to see if they hit you.
I ready versus someone attacking me to teleport 10 feet.
Someone attacks me. <Initialize action 1>
My ready goes off and I teleport. <Initialize action 2>
My teleporting was a spell and thus the enemy gets an AOO <Initialize action 3>
That is the end of reactions, now we resolve each action...
<resolve action 3> The enemy misses
<resolve action 2> The interuption failed to prevent me from continuing myaction. I teleport.
<resolve action 1> Teleporting prevents the enemy from resolving his action so he can not continue his action.
Now, as this is all abstracted it does get a bit muddy and a little hard to understand. But it accounts for why you can't trip someone when they are attempting to stand up without breaking any rules of causality.
The enemy isn't really mid-swing during action 1. Here's the part that helps... due to you readying, you are paying close attention and start your action as soon as they look like they are about to do their action. Such as them beginning to raise their weapon, put their hand in their spell pouch and start to mutter or whatever. So you perform your action right then. Since you were readied you go first. Now, I do want to say you need to know it is coming. You can't ready versus being attacked and trigger your ready if someone invisible hits you. You didn't know they were there, so your preparations were not enough.
This allows them to make an AOO with the same weapon they were going to attack you with without being messy.
Just say no to time travel.
Also, it is not nonsense for a readied action to interrupt between action and resolution. That is specifically how they must work. Or featherfall couldn't function. They are very poorly described, but the mere fact that the Swashbuckler's Charmed Life works means it can be interruptive. Think of them functioning like an AOO that doesn't have the activation limitation.
The whole point is that they are so super fast to perform that you can use them like that.
Any logically existing point in time. A time machine would let me travel to see the asteroid take out the dinos or see the signing of the declaration of indepence. It would not let me travel to see the dinosaurs signing the declaration of indepndence, or a time when there were flowering plants but no mammals.
Flowering plants came after mammals? Did you have that backwards or did I just learn something super awesome today?
You have a much different view of Readied actions than I. Yes, readied actions happen before the action that triggered it... sort of.
A readied action can literally go back in time to before the triggering event occurs in order to, among other things, prevent the triggering event from happening in the first place.
No sort of. They do. As per rule: "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it."
Here is a break down of what happens really...
Not according to the rules, no.
For the dynamite example... if you readied versus the dynamite exploding you are really readying versus the resolution of the dynamite exploding, not it exploding. Thus you could put up fire resistance, but not put out the now exploded dynamite.
Nope. I can put out the yet-to-be-exploded dynamite, because "the [readied] action occurs just before the action that triggers it." That's how, for example, I can prevent a spell from being cast with a readied arrow. The fireball doesn't go off, meaning no one takes damage.
Just say no to time travel.
I prefer "just say yes to reading comprehension."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any logically existing point in time. A time machine would let me travel to see the asteroid take out the dinos or see the signing of the declaration of indepence. It would not let me travel to see the dinosaurs signing the declaration of indepndence, or a time when there were flowering plants but no mammals.Flowering plants came after mammals? Did you have that backwards or did I just learn something super awesome today?
Well, no one really knows for sure -- the newsreel footage that we have from that period is in black and white only and kind of grainy.
But according to current theories, flowering plants originated about 160 million years ago (mya), while the first of the "crown group mammals" originated about 200 mya. And, of course, the mammaliformes and the mammal-like reptiles go back earlier. (This looks awfully mammalian to me.)
I am going to try and clarify my understanding of the immediate action limitations one more time.
I have already posted the immediate action entry from the PRD so I will not do it again.
Immediate actions can not interrupt an action in progress. If someone declares a standard action of casting a spell, an immediate action can not be taken until that standard action spell has fully resolved.
If someone declares a full round attack, you can use an immediate action. Once they start their first attack action, you can not use an immediate action until that attack action is complete. But you can take an immediate action in between each individual attack action.
*All of this has the standard disclaimer "Unless an ability says otherwise".
This is tremendously different from my understanding of them. My understanding is that you can use an immediate action "at any time" meaning that if there is time, you can do it.
In your examples, my understanding is that between declaring that an attack is being made and rolling the attack, there is time enough for an immediate action.
Certainly, there has to be "time" within a full-round attack considering that the rules state that it takes six full seconds to resolve so yeah, during a full-round attack you absolutely can use an immediate action.
I do not see time between a roll being made and a resolution occurring, though. If you're making the roll, that's the instant the resolution occurs.
My only area where I feel fuzzy is if there is any time between targeting a spell and the spell coming into full effect. Some spells make it clear that there is, indeed, time. Fireball is a bead flying through the air; magic missile is magical energy that "darts forth"; acid arrow "speeds to its target"; bull's strength requires you to touch a target; shocking grasp requires you to attack a target. In all of these, there's a defined period of time after the spell is targeted but what about hold person? There's no ray or missile or dart of energy. You're just held. Is there any time between targeting and the effect?
I am going to try and clarify my understanding of the immediate action limitations one more time.
I have already posted the immediate action entry from the PRD so I will not do it again.
Immediate actions can not interrupt an action in progress. If someone declares a standard action of casting a spell, an immediate action can not be taken until that standard action spell has fully resolved.
If someone declares a full round attack, you can use an immediate action. Once they start their first attack action, you can not use an immediate action until that attack action is complete. But you can take an immediate action in between each individual attack action.
*All of this has the standard disclaimer "Unless an ability says otherwise".
This is tremendously different from my understanding of them. My understanding is that you can use an immediate action "at any time" meaning that if there is time, you can do it.
In your examples, my understanding is that between declaring that an attack is being made and rolling the attack, there is time enough for an immediate action.
Certainly, there has to be "time" within a full-round attack considering that the rules state that it takes six full seconds to resolve so yeah, during a full-round attack you absolutely can use an immediate action.
I do not see time between a roll being made and a resolution occurring, though. If you're making the roll, that's the instant the resolution occurs.
My only area where I feel fuzzy is if there is any time between targeting a spell and the spell coming into full effect. Some spells make it clear that there is, indeed, time. Fireball is a bead flying through the air; magic missile is magical energy that "darts forth"; acid arrow "speeds to its target"; bull's strength requires you to touch a target; shocking grasp requires you to attack a target. In all of these, there's a defined period of time after the spell is targeted but what about hold person? There's no ray or missile or dart of...
My interpretation of the immediate action definition has shifted from this atom-splitting view of "any time" to "any time a swift action could be performed, even if it's not your turn." The obvious exception here is when the spell or ability states otherwise. This is because "An immediate action is very similar to a swift action."
At this point, I think the argument has gotten ideological enough that only a FAQ will address it.
At this point, I think the argument has gotten ideological enough that only a FAQ will address it.
Oh, yeah, I think that it's clear that how immediate actions work is really unclear and we need a good, firm, clear FAQ or errata or new rule set clarifying it.
Depending on fluff this will is only cause arguments as people quote Einstein that there is no spooky action at a distance, that everything propagates at some speed. Then someone is going to argue about quantum entanglement at arbitrary distance, then someone else is going to wave their hands around and say but 'it's magic' and no one will know what position they are arguing.
The rules aren't super clear, I still believe you can't perform an immediate action on an event that has already occurred and it's explicit that targets for spells are chosen after the spell is cast.
Until there is a FAQ or other word people should really do what they think is best for game balance, fun, and emergence.