Immediate Actions


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I can time travel to any time in 1881.

When should I time travel to so that there is no president of the united states? I want to arrive after Rutherford B. Hayes is president but before James A. Garfield is President.

Just go to the oath ceremony of James A Garfield before he accepts.

That is the point after you've been targeted and before that is resolved.

Lots of games have this meta timing concept, even pathfinder has this concept in a lot of effects. Some effects don't list any timing restrictions so it seems more than reasonable they can operate in the same points of time that all the effects with no timing restrictions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Trimalchio wrote:
Targets are selected after the spell is cast. The spell has already resolved.

That's the interpretation being made that I completely disagree with.

The spell comes into effect, decisions regarding the spell are made, then the effect resolves.

The issue is whether or not there is time in between the spell coming into effect and the effect resolving.

There is not a single doubt in my mind that there is a step in between the spell coming into effect and the effect resolving. I can understand why people read it that way, but I don't agree.

Why do I believe this?

Because we are all in agreement that for spells that make an attack roll, you can respond to the attack roll.

Same steps. Spell comes into effect & decisions are made, characters have a chance to react, effect resolves (in this case, by requiring an attack roll.)

To me, there is no question that there is zero difference between a spell that requires an attack roll and one that doesn't; it's the same steps.

Spell comes into effect & decisions are made, there is a chance to react, and the effect resolves (such as by requiring a saving throw.)

Once the attack roll or saving throw has been made, you're out of luck, it's too late.

This is the crux of the debate.

Some feel that there is a difference in the speed of resolution between a spell that has a physical effect and a spell that does not have a physical effect. I think that's nonsense. It's inconsistent and opens up bizarre corner-cases.

I believe firmly that all spells are resolved in the same manner, as I laid out above. I also believe this idea time-traveling readied actions are total nonsense. It simply means you interrupt the triggering action in the turn order.

If there's time where you could react using a readied action, there's time you can react with an immediate action, because an immediate action may be performed at any time. So if there's time for one, there's time for the other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I can time travel to any time in 1881.

When should I time travel to so that there is no president of the united states? I want to arrive after Rutherford B. Hayes is president but before James A. Garfield is President.

Just go to the oath ceremony of James A Garfield before he accepts.

That is the point after you've been targeted and before that is resolved.

Lots of games have this meta timing concept, even pathfinder has this concept in a lot of effects. Some effects don't list any timing restrictions so it seems more than reasonable they can operate in the same points of time that all the effects with no timing restrictions.

This might be the funniest correct answer I have ever seen.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Basically, you only need line of effect when you choose your target (for targeted spells, specifically).


BigNorseWolf wrote:

I can time travel to any time in 1881.

When should I time travel to so that there is no president of the united states? I want to arrive after Rutherford B. Hayes is president but before James A. Garfield is President.

Just after Noon on March 4th, when Hayes' term ended, but before Garfield said his Oath. There's a few minutes in there, I'm sure.


James Risner wrote:

Just go to the oath ceremony of James A Garfield before he accepts.

Nope. He's still the president even before he's sworn in.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


James Risner wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I can time travel to any time in 1881.

When should I time travel to so that there is no president of the united states? I want to arrive after Rutherford B. Hayes is president but before James A. Garfield is President.

Just go to the oath ceremony of James A Garfield before he accepts.

That is the point after you've been targeted and before that is resolved.

That's better than my answer.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Risner wrote:

Just go to the oath ceremony of James A Garfield before he accepts.

Nope. He's still the president even before he's sworn in.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That quote contradicts you. The very first word is "Before". He's not the President until AFTER the oath.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Risner wrote:

Just go to the oath ceremony of James A Garfield before he accepts.

Nope. He's still the president even before he's sworn in.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This is simply wrong. He is president elect.


MeanMutton wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Risner wrote:

Just go to the oath ceremony of James A Garfield before he accepts.

Nope. He's still the president even before he's sworn in.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That quote contradicts you. The very first word is "Before". He's not the President until AFTER the oath.

The execution of his office. Not the possession of his office.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Risner wrote:

Just go to the oath ceremony of James A Garfield before he accepts.

Nope. He's still the president even before he's sworn in.

Not legally

Quote:
President-elect of the United States is the title used for an incoming president of the United States in the period between the general election on Election Day in November and noon Eastern Standard Time on Inauguration Day, January 20, during which the president-elect is not in office yet

So you have about 2 to 3 months of time there, a huge window. Time the outgoing president is still doing all the work and the incoming is not yet president but "targeted" to be.


and noon Eastern Standard Time <--- He becomes the president at noon. Right when the previous presidency ends. Before doing anything else, he takes the oath of office. but at 12:00.01 He's still lifting his hand up, he's still the president (although if there was a reason to rules lawyer it technically he could take said oath even before running but RAW vs RAI there...)

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

If the president-elect gets imprisoned before assuming office, the presidency isn't canceled or rendered ineffective. The nation chooses a new target, and the VP-elect is sworn in instead.


I come from a Magic the Gathering background.

To me, you can respond to any effect after targeting but before it resolves with something that is "Quicker."

Wizard casts spell, decides target, target uses immediate action, resolve if applicable.

I've never had an issue.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

2 people marked this as a favorite.
KujakuDM wrote:

Wizard casts spell, decides target, target uses immediate action, resolve if applicable.

I've never had an issue.

+1

Neither has Pathfinder had an issue with this as there are literally countless examples of that post in this thread already.

The complain comes from an ability that has no timing restrictions is some how more restrictive than all the abilities with more explicit timing restrictions.

That doesn't make any sense at all.


James Risner wrote:
KujakuDM wrote:

Wizard casts spell, decides target, target uses immediate action, resolve if applicable.

I've never had an issue.

+1

Neither has Pathfinder had an issue with this as there are literally countless examples of that post in this thread already.

The complain comes from an ability that has no timing restrictions is some how more restrictive than all the abilities with more explicit timing restrictions.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

The opposite is the case. You have restrictive timing on immediate actions, and a bunch of abilities that are less restrictive as they are granted exceptions to the restrictions of immediate actions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tindalen wrote:


The opposite is the case. You have restrictive timing on immediate actions, and a bunch of abilities that are less restrictive as they are granted exceptions to the restrictions of immediate actions.

"Any time" is more restrictive that what exactly? If another ability can do it, wouldn't that too be included in "any time"? What exactly are these "limitations" on immediate actions you speak of?


I don't see how feather fall works in this scenario.

Despite Pathfinder's lack of tracking the time it takes to fall, there is still the assumption of physics involved with falling. This means that there is sufficient time between starting the fall and the end of the fall where the damage is applied.

To be analogous, you would want to cast feather fall after you hit the ground in order to interrupt the application of damage.

That doesn't exactly work.


graystone wrote:
Tindalen wrote:


The opposite is the case. You have restrictive timing on immediate actions, and a bunch of abilities that are less restrictive as they are granted exceptions to the restrictions of immediate actions.
"Any time" is more restrictive that what exactly? If another ability can do it, wouldn't that too be included in "any time"? What exactly are these "limitations" on immediate actions you speak of?

The ability to interrupt is the specific exception that is being discussed. People keep quoting "any time" but the phrase is not defined by PFS and in no way states that you can interrupt an action. The spells and abilities that allow you to interrupt explicitly state that you can interrupt. There is no rule that allows immediate actions the default ability to interrupt other actions.

You have a turn based system, 1 round is 6 seconds, not 1 players turn. If you have 6 players and 5 enemies, a round is not all of a sudden 66 seconds long. Stop trying to wedge real world concepts into small portions of rules while ignoring larger portions that simple do not fit.

Immediate actions can by used at any point during the round but can not interrupt other actions because it does not explicitly state that it can.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Risner wrote:

Just go to the oath ceremony of James A Garfield before he accepts.

Nope. He's still the president even before he's sworn in.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That quote contradicts you. The very first word is "Before". He's not the President until AFTER the oath.
The execution of his office. Not the possession of his office.

"he enter on the Execution of his Office" is old-timey speak for "becomes President". He doesn't become President immediately at noon. The previous President STOPS being President at noon and he takes his oath somewhere around then and THEN becomes President.


Seems like a case of "This rule isn't an issue but I'M going to MAKE it an issue!"

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Tindalen wrote:
The opposite is the case. You have restrictive timing on immediate actions, and a bunch of abilities that are less restrictive as they are granted exceptions to the restrictions of immediate actions.

You misunderstand the definition of true. The only rule we have is "any time" and there is no rule saying your position. You must insert words into the interpretation to get there. You are free to do so, and call your interpretation RAW. But there is another RAW. Mine. That allows you to EFS after being targeted and before effected to negate the target. And you can't show a rules text to refute my interpretation.


MeanMutton wrote:


"he enter on the Execution of his Office" is old-timey speak for "becomes President". He doesn't become President immediately at noon. The previous President STOPS being President at noon and he takes his oath somewhere around then and THEN becomes President.

Legally speaking, this is wrong. There is, by long-standing common law, no gap between successive (I fuppofe this fhould be "fuccefsive") presidencies, just as there is no gap between kings.

Terry Pratchett got it right when he put it thusly:

Quote:
The only things known to go faster than ordinary light is monarchy, according to the philosopher Ly Tin Weedle. He reasoned like this: you can't have more than one king, and tradition demands that there is no gap between kings, so when a king dies the succession must therefore pass to the heir instantaneously. Presumably, he said, there must be some elementary particles -- kingons, or possibly queons -- that do this job, but of course succession sometimes fails if, in mid-flight, they strike an anti-particle, or republicon. His ambitious plans to use his discovery to send messages, involving the careful torturing of a small king in order to modulate the signal, were never fully expanded because, at that point, the bar closed.

The reason for that is that there are a number of things that rely on the authority of the head of state -- basically, anything in the (US) executive branch, and in the Commonwealth, the legislative and judiciary as well. It would be inconvenient and stupid for all the ambassadors world-wide to need to break off their talks or refrain from signing documents because the presidency was temporarily vacant.

And, no, this isn't just idle speculation. In 2008, President Obama rather famously botched the oath of office. A number of people filed suit almost immediately on the grounds that he was not a valid president; the various courts duly recited the line of reasoning above and dismissed the suits.

So, under both long-standing common law as confirmed by judicial decision, there is no gap between presidents, and MeanMutton is wrong.


James Risner wrote:
Tindalen wrote:
The opposite is the case. You have restrictive timing on immediate actions, and a bunch of abilities that are less restrictive as they are granted exceptions to the restrictions of immediate actions.
You misunderstand the definition of true. The only rule we have is "any time" and there is no rule saying your position. You must insert words into the interpretation to get there. You are free to do so, and call your interpretation RAW. But there is another RAW. Mine. That allows you to EFS after being targeted and before effected to negate the target. And you can't show a rules text to refute my interpretation.

I don't care about EFS, that is another one that keeps bring brought up that is muddying the discussion.

I am not adding rules, I am interpreting the lack of a rule in the general and the inclusion of a rule in the specific to mean that the general is excluding the rule.

Immediate action(general): Does not say it interrupts.
Dented Helm(feat example): Specifically says when the ability can be used that includes an interrupt of an action.
Attacks of Opportunity: Explicitly state they interrupt.
Readied actions: Explicitly state they can interrupt.

My interpretation is assuming that, because abilities that can interrupt explicitly state they can interrupt, if an ability does not say it can interrupt then it can not.


Tindalen wrote:
Immediate actions can by used at any point during the round but can not interrupt other actions because it does not explicitly state that it can.

That's the crux of the issue. There is NOTHING stating interrupting isn't part of "any time". None. There is no rule back up for this exclusion. Where does it SAY Immediate actions are more restricted than interrupts or that "any time" needs an explicit statement to interrupt?

You are stating "People keep quoting "any time" but the phrase is not defined by PFS and in no way states that you can interrupt an action" but can't see the flip side: Nothing states that "any time" doesn't include the time that exists for interrupt actions. Interrupts take actions and time so why does that time not get included in "any time"?

It's like you're trying to tell me there is a number not included in infinity ... "∞ totally doesn't include 5 because the rules don't SAY it included 5..." Claims that English doesn't mean what it says because it's not defined doesn't make ANY sense. If it isn't defined, you fall back to what it means in the general understanding of the words.


KujakuDM wrote:
Seems like a case of "This rule isn't an issue but I'M going to MAKE it an issue!"

Oh, I think that there is an issue. Emergency Force Sphere is an incredibly poorly defined spell that leads to a wide range of reasonable interpretations.

Can you use the spell to protect yourself from a fireball spell? Can you use it to protect yourself from Hold Person? Can you use it to protect yourself from a sword slash? Can you use it to protect yourself from a sword slash that had hit you immediately prior to it actually damaging you?

People in this thread have reasonable rulings on these questions ranging from yes to all of them to no to all of them, with most people having some yes and some no.

Frankly, the spell needs to be rewritten but I'm not holding my breath.


Tindalen wrote:
My interpretation is assuming that, because abilities that can interrupt explicitly state they can interrupt, if an ability does not say it can interrupt then it can not.

And what if the rules assume the undefined "any time" should be self evident that it doesn't need an explicit statement? You bring in an assumption that interrupts MUST be allowed but is there a explicit statement of that? As there isn't one that I know of, why do you need an explicit statement for Immediate actions and not an explicit statement that interrupts need one?

The bottom line is that your 'rule' lacks the explicit statement you're asking us for to disprove your 'rule'. It's a catch 22.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
MeanMutton wrote:


"he enter on the Execution of his Office" is old-timey speak for "becomes President". He doesn't become President immediately at noon. The previous President STOPS being President at noon and he takes his oath somewhere around then and THEN becomes President.

Legally speaking, this is wrong. There is, by long-standing common law, no gap between successive (I fuppofe this fhould be "fuccefsive") presidencies, just as there is no gap between kings.

Terry Pratchett got it right when he put it thusly:

Quote:
The only things known to go faster than ordinary light is monarchy, according to the philosopher Ly Tin Weedle. He reasoned like this: you can't have more than one king, and tradition demands that there is no gap between kings, so when a king dies the succession must therefore pass to the heir instantaneously. Presumably, he said, there must be some elementary particles -- kingons, or possibly queons -- that do this job, but of course succession sometimes fails if, in mid-flight, they strike an anti-particle, or republicon. His ambitious plans to use his discovery to send messages, involving the careful torturing of a small king in order to modulate the signal, were never fully expanded because, at that point, the bar closed.

The reason for that is that there are a number of things that rely on the authority of the head of state -- basically, anything in the (US) executive branch, and in the Commonwealth, the legislative and judiciary as well. It would be inconvenient and stupid for all the ambassadors world-wide to need to break off their talks or refrain from signing documents because the presidency was temporarily vacant.

And, no, this isn't just idle speculation. In 2008, President Obama rather famously botched the oath of office. A number of people filed suit almost immediately on the grounds that he was not a valid president; the various courts duly recited the line of reasoning above and dismissed the suits.

So, under both...

An English fantasy author's musings on the line of succession of a monarch isn't very relevant to discussions on the timing of when an American becomes President. That said, it's kind of a side-show from the real question. A better example: Can one travel back in time to between when Barack Obama stopped being the President Elect and when he became President?


After rereading the first two pages, I think I now understand the arguments better. I just don't like the results of either very much when it comes to targeted spells. I need to talk to my players.

I share Gulthor's views about the cast+targeting/effect issues. I don't consider having the ability to block a targeted spell to be time travel. If the block decision is made before the attack roll/saving throw, I don't see that it matters whether the attack was a ray or a targeted effect. The real problem is this: giving emergency force sphere the ability to spring into existence after targeting means it voids practically any attack at the cost of level 4 slot. It becomes so good that after an intense caster fight it sounds like there can be a dozen of the little domes around. Automatically negating maze or imprisonment is too much.

I see why BigNorseWolf and Trimalchio write about cast+targeting=effect rule. Without first-hand experience, it sounds like this turns emergency force sphere into "kill my buddies instead, I'm turtling up" solution. Despite that, I think I need to adopt this method. Perhaps I should use a dice or card or something to decide the target without revealing it to the players, grant Spellcraft rolls and allow EFS activations, and then reveal the counter and finish the attack. That way I can still grant the players the feeling of success when the spell actually saves someone. Instead of dooming the non-arcane casters.

I also don't see immediate actions as being unable to interrupt actions. What would be the point in giving EFS immediate casting time in that case? If you would cast it just on your own turn, casting time: swift action would do. If you were to use it as a readied action, casting time: standard action would do.

After writing all that, I may be concerned over nothing. How common is this spell in practice?
Edit: Sweet Desna, I have been editing this for almost two hours? This thread moves too fast for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MeanMutton wrote:
An English fantasy author's musings on the line of succession of a monarch isn't very relevant to discussions on the timing of when an American becomes President.

It is when the same line of reasoning is followed by US Federal Courts, as I wrote.

me wrote:


And, no, this isn't just idle speculation. In 2008, President Obama rather famously botched the oath of office....
Quote:
A better example: Can one travel back in time to between when Barack Obama stopped being the President Elect and when he became President?

No. As per federal court decision, based on long-standing common law.


Naal wrote:


I also don't see immediate actions as being unable to interrupt actions. What would be the point in giving EFS immediate casting time in that case?

The point is to be able to cast it in response to something that happens not on your turn, such as when the rocks of an avalanche are starting to fall, or when the water is rising in a flood.

But note that it's in response to, not in interruption of. Because, unlike readied actions, EFS and other immediate actions are not empowered to interrupt other actions.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

So... I use contingency to cast dimension door on myself to move me 30 feet to my left if I am ever subject to a fireball.

Valid, yes?

But what's being bandied about here is that I should burn before being relocated because all the decisions about a spell blah blah.

Sorry, but the purpose of contingency is to react in a helpful manner. Proactively, not just after-the-fact. "If I'm killed by something, cast cure light wounds on me."

Well, immediate actions are the same. They're there to be helpful. Any time remains any time. I won't say immediate actions "interrupt" anything... they just get resolved first if they're declared first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Tindalen wrote:
Immediate actions can by used at any point during the round but can not interrupt other actions because it does not explicitly state that it can.

That's the crux of the issue. There is NOTHING stating interrupting isn't part of "any time". None. There is no rule back up for this exclusion. Where does it SAY Immediate actions are more restricted than interrupts.

It says it by omission. Readied actions are explicitly empowered to interrupt, as are attacks of opportunity. Because no such language is present for immediate actions, the preferred reading by the standard principles of statutory construction, (in particular, the exclusio altus rule) is that ONLY readied actions, AoO, and other abilities specifically marked as having the ability to interrupt have the ability to interrupt.

More generally, Pathfinder rules do not tell you what you CAN'T do, they tell you what you CAN do. If they don't tell you you CAN do something, the general rule is that you can't. That's why there's no explicit rule that says humans can't burrow....


Anguish wrote:

So... I use contingency to cast dimension door on myself to move me 30 feet to my left if I am ever subject to a fireball.

Valid, yes?

But what's being bandied about here is that I should burn before being relocated because all the decisions about a spell blah blah.

Sorry, but the purpose of contingency is to react in a helpful manner. Proactively, not just after-the-fact. "If I'm killed by something, cast cure light wounds on me."

Well, immediate actions are the same. They're there to be helpful. Any time remains any time. I won't say immediate actions "interrupt" anything... they just get resolved first if they're declared first.

Contingency is not a good example for a couple reasons. First, contingency bringing in the affect of the second spell is not an action. So we are not discussing the same thing. Second, you write the rules for when the second spell will be triggered, you are writing your own timing rules in this case.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Tindalen wrote:
Immediate actions can by used at any point during the round but can not interrupt other actions because it does not explicitly state that it can.

That's the crux of the issue. There is NOTHING stating interrupting isn't part of "any time". None. There is no rule back up for this exclusion. Where does it SAY Immediate actions are more restricted than interrupts or that "any time" needs an explicit statement to interrupt?

You are stating "People keep quoting "any time" but the phrase is not defined by PFS and in no way states that you can interrupt an action" but can't see the flip side: Nothing states that "any time" doesn't include the time that exists for interrupt actions. Interrupts take actions and time so why does that time not get included in "any time"?

It's like you're trying to tell me there is a number not included in infinity ... "∞ totally doesn't include 5 because the rules don't SAY it included 5..." Claims that English doesn't mean what it says because it's not defined doesn't make ANY sense. If it isn't defined, you fall back to what it means in the general understanding of the words.

If something in Pathfinder is not well defined, it becomes table variation. If a player insisted that his gnome character farts rainbows, would you allow him to do that simply because the rules are silent (but deadly) on that issue? Generally speaking, the rules tell you what you can do. This is a case where things are really muddled because of a few bad apples in the literal years of source material we have available to us.

My interpretation hinges on other indicators within the definition of an immediate action: it is "very similar to a swift action" per the CRB, after all. Can you split a standard action with a swift action? My inclination is no. We also know that "Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action and counts as your swift action for that turn." Thus, we can infer that they have very similar timing properties.

My interpretation, then, is that an immediate action being usable "at any time" merely means the same thing as the remainder clause of its definition: "even if it's not your turn." Exceptions to this exist as clauses within individual spells, as I've outlined before. Those exceptions clearly state when they allow you to interrupt an action in progress.

tl;dr: once an action is started, it can only be interrupted by things that say they can interrupt - AoOs, readied actions, and immediate action spells and abilities that explicitly state a trigger condition for interrupting.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Can immediate actions interrupt free actions?

I say no, personally. Free actions are "faster" actions than swift/immediate.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

People coming in the thread claiming it should work how they think it works in MTG and not understanding the rules in pathfinder exactly describe how the card Turnabout works is triggering me. It is a very easy concept to understand not picking decisions about the spell until it has resolved but once it has there is nothing you can do about it because they all happen at the exact same time.

That spell ruling has been around for 12 years and it works fine for them.


Anguish wrote:

So... I use contingency to cast dimension door on myself to move me 30 feet to my left if I am ever subject to a fireball.

Valid, yes?

But what's being bandied about here is that I should burn before being relocated because all the decisions about a spell blah blah.

Sorry, but the purpose of contingency is to react in a helpful manner. Proactively, not just after-the-fact. "If I'm killed by something, cast cure light wounds on me."

If your contingency is "subjected" to a fireball, then you have to decide if there's an instant of time where you can think "oh, s&#%" before that bead of fire explodes around you. If you think you can't, or you're blind, or you require a perception roll to decide if you blinked or were looking the wrong way, then you might have to take damage first.

The purpose of a contingency hardly matters. The purpose of a sledgehammer is to smash things apart, but that's not going to help me if I try to use on something that's too hard or big. "Not fit for purpose" is a phrase that exists for a reason.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
graystone wrote:
Tindalen wrote:
My interpretation is assuming that, because abilities that can interrupt explicitly state they can interrupt, if an ability does not say it can interrupt then it can not.

And what if the rules assume the undefined "any time" should be self evident that it doesn't need an explicit statement? You bring in an assumption that interrupts MUST be allowed but is there a explicit statement of that? As there isn't one that I know of, why do you need an explicit statement for Immediate actions and not an explicit statement that interrupts need one?

The bottom line is that your 'rule' lacks the explicit statement you're asking us for to disprove your 'rule'. It's a catch 22.

So we have two interpretations right now.

1: "Any Time", this interpretation says, as long as you are not flat footed, you are capable of using an immediate action. This is based on an exclusive interpretation of the PFS rules set. Unless it says you can't, you can.

2: "Can Not Interrupt", this interpretation says, you can use an immediate action during the same times you can use a swift action and on other peoples turns, as long as you are not flat footed. This is based on an inclusive interpretation of the PFS rules set. Unless it says you can, you can't.

I see both interpretations as reasonable interpretations with one primary question. Can immediate actions interrupt other actions?


Naal wrote:
I see why BigNorseWolf and Trimalchio write about cast+targeting=effect rule. Without first-hand experience, it sounds like this turns emergency force sphere into "kill my buddies instead, I'm turtling up" solution.

Which is still REALLY good. Because if someone it tossing a spell at you, chances are pretty good they picked one that would hurt you the most, like feeblemind.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
More generally, Pathfinder rules do not tell you what you CAN'T do, they tell you what you CAN do.

Yep, it tells you you can do it at "any time".

Orfamay Quest wrote:
If they don't tell you you CAN do something, the general rule is that you can't.

It doesn't say interrupts aren't covered by "any time" so it looks like I'm in the clear. It boils down to this: is an interrupting action a moment in time? If it is, the rules allow me to use an Immediate action.

As for as I know all actions take time other than "Not an Action" actions, so an interrupt action must happen in one of those times. If that time exists how is it not covered by the existing rule "any time"? Without an explicit definition of the phrase, it falls to normal English to parse it. Any time would then cover any thing that takes even an instant of time as any cover any instance of time. We can quibble over what takes time to do but anything you think would take time is a chance to use an immediate action. This would only change if "any time" gets changed to means something other than "any time".

Serisan wrote:
"at any time" merely means the same thing as the remainder clause of its definition: "even if it's not your turn."

This could be the intent but as Orfamay Quest says, "Pathfinder rules do not tell you what you CAN'T do, they tell you what you CAN do". They tell you that at any time you can use an immediate action and there is no explicit exception for not using it at a time that it can interrupt something.


To clarify the way my interpretation actually happens in a game.

So&so is casting
A: I spellcraft
GM: spell x is being cast
~~~
Now if a player or NPC is especially fond of casting EFS I will sometimes ask/declare it at this point.

~~
GM: spell resolves, it targets B, or it targets this intersection etc

~~

This allows EFS to be used, to be a super effective defense vs most everything and allows the N/PC to complete their action and select valid targets.

~~

Ruling otherwise makes EFS a Schroeder spell, IE the caster never gets targeted and never uses the spell because doing so would fizzle most anything besides a disintegrate ray ( and incidentally most everyone going to use EFS when they spellcraft disintegrate is being cast anyway).

I suppose if people think spell casters are underpowered they can rule EFS can fizzle spells after targets are selected, but it creates a strategic situation that is vastly alien to most of the rule set.


For those talking about how MTG works, that's great, but does it really need to be pointed out that this is not MTG? And thus the relevance of how MTG works is exactly zero.

For those suggesting that an immediate action cannot interrupt another players actions, let me point something out for your consideration.

When am I allowed to take a free action? On my turn.
Can I take a free action in the middle of my other actions? Yes. See examples of swapping out weapons during a full attack - most notably quick draw thrown weapons, drawing an arrow, etc.
When can I take a swift action? Anytime you could take a free action is the time you could also take a swift action.
When can I take an immediate action? Anytime I could take a swift action, plus any time during another characters turn.

So... if swift actions can be taken in the middle of your own actions (that is to interrupt your own actions), doesn't it seem a little odd that immediate actions could also interrupt your own actions but not interrupt another players actions?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

HIGHLY RELEVANT CROSSPOST.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Naal wrote:
I see why BigNorseWolf and Trimalchio write about cast+targeting=effect rule. Without first-hand experience, it sounds like this turns emergency force sphere into "kill my buddies instead, I'm turtling up" solution.
Which is still REALLY good. Because if someone it tossing a spell at you, chances are pretty good they picked one that would hurt you the most, like feeblemind.

True that. Plus there's still the problem of getting out instead of going on the offensive. Not everybody is a wizard with the teleportation school, and dimension door eats the same slots as EFS.

There are probably also several effective countermeasures against someone shacked up in the dome. Thunderstomp might be useful, since a tripped creature remains prone even if he teleports out. Black tentacles could work.

Orfamay Quest wrote:

The point is to be able to cast it in response to something that happens not on your turn, such as when the rocks of an avalanche are starting to fall, or when the water is rising in a flood.

But note that it's in response to, not in interruption of. Because, unlike readied actions, EFS and other immediate actions are not empowered to interrupt other actions.

I'll keep this in mind. I am still not signing the theory that immediate actions are unable to interrupt, but I have been wrong before, and I shall be wrong again.

Trimalchio wrote:

...closing pit example...

...allows the N/PC to complete their action and select valid targets...

The pit thing I fully agree with.

The second item is also something I need to keep in mind. Action economy is usually on the player's side, and negating an action powerful enough to warrant EFS is almost equal to dazing the foe for a round.

Thank you, all.

Neither-immediate-or-readied-but-just-ninjaed-edit:

Serisan wrote:
HIGHLY RELEVANT CROSSPOST

Oh good grief they just keep coming I'm going to bed and not looking at this thread until tomorrow.


*headscratch*

As much as I'm in favor of not playing immediate action whackamole, why would arcane shield even be an immediate action then? Are you supposed to use it just as people get near you?


I'm a no on black tentacles into the dome. The area in question is blocked from line of effect. The tentacles are bad enough without letting them need line of effect

In a similar situation, my druid summoned an earth elemental and told it to "pound on the pheasant under glass until it stops moving, then bind her wounds"


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's better to think of immediate actions as Super actions or ultimate actions. Due to the timing of "Any time" whenever another action in the game NO MATTER WHAT ACTION IT IS could take place that action takes place at some time (Counter spelling, more restrictive immediate actions like hero's defiance, exct) immediate actions can be taken.


Undone wrote:

I think it's better to think of immediate actions as Super actions or ultimate actions.

And I think this is exactly wrong. The Super actions are readied actions, not immediate actions, because they are explicitly capable of time travel, which is not a power given to immediate actions.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:


*headscratch*

As much as I'm in favor of not playing immediate action whackamole, why would arcane shield even be an immediate action then? Are you supposed to use it just as people get near you?

Because you could use it if someone took a move action to approach you, but before they declare a standard action attack. Alternatively, if an archer 5' steps out from behind a pillar, you could activate it before they started their full attack action.

201 to 250 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Immediate Actions All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.