| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Readied actions can't do that. They simply stop an action from happening or interrupt it mid execution. Readied actions do not cancel the effect after it has happened like an immediate action can (hero's defiance, stone shield).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.
Hero's Defiance has a trigger condition that allows it to supersede general rules: "The instant before you are reduced to 0 or fewer hit points..."
Stone Shield is a spell that is in contention as it does not outline any conditions. It's being used as the basis of the FAQ request. FAQ request here
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread feels like that microsoft FAQ.
"I keep hitting the Tab key but my computer doesn't give me any soda! Plz halp!'... :P
Closely followed by ctrl+alt+delete: 'ok I hit those but nothing happens.' 'What did you do step by step' 'Well I hit ctrl, then I hit alt and then I hit delete...'
Just remember that "any time" CAN'T possibly mean "any time". It just wouldn't make any sense to use English and a common usage of words to understand pathfinder... We're just missing the decoder ring.
Except that time does not flow in Pathfinder combat like it does in the real world. Though people are assuming it does.
If you don't have a specific listed way that time flow works, what else do you use? As the current rules for it are sparse to non existent what do you replace it with except causality?>
Hear me out on this: what if "an action" is the unit of time that Pathfinder operates on? That is to say, there is no unit of time smaller than an action.
Hear me out on this: what if "an action" is the unit of time that Pathfinder operates on? That is to say, there is no unit of time smaller than an action.
Seems unlikely or you wouldn't be able to hit someone during casting.
Hear me out on this: what if "an action" is the unit of time that Pathfinder operates on? That is to say, there is no unit of time smaller than an action.Seems unlikely or you wouldn't be able to hit someone during casting.
Readied actions, AoOs, and the specific immediate actions that say they interrupt are the "specific trumps general" of that measure of time.
Hear me out on this: what if "an action" is the unit of time that Pathfinder operates on? That is to say, there is no unit of time smaller than an action.
We already know this is false. A 5' step can be taken "before, during, or after your other actions in the round." So you could take it during your swift/immediate action. So no matter how little time an action takes, there is time during it that you can make ANOTHER action... Heck, you could do it during an AoO you make on your round...
Hear me out on this: what if "an action" is the unit of time that Pathfinder operates on? That is to say, there is no unit of time smaller than an action.We already know this is false. A 5' step can be taken "before, during, or after your other actions in the round." So you could take it during your swift/immediate action. So no matter how little time an action takes, there is time during it that you can make ANOTHER action... Heck, you could do it during an AoO you make on your round...
Miscellaneous Actions
The following actions take a variable amount of time to accomplish or otherwise work differently than other actions.Take 5-Foot Step
Also, if you look under the chart of example actions and whether they provoke, the 5' step falls under "No Action." The 5' step is an exception in virtually every regard.
Readied actions, AoOs, and the specific immediate actions that say they interrupt are the "specific trumps general" of that measure of time.
Interpreting that its the smallest unit of time possible except for dozens of exceptions when its not doesn't make it much of a rule. I think even if that was a clearly written rule it would be so swiss cheesed by now that anything else might be an exception to it. I think reading it as an implication of the rules or an interpretation is a non starter.
Hear me out on this: what if "an action" is the unit of time that Pathfinder operates on? That is to say, there is no unit of time smaller than an action.We already know this is false. A 5' step can be taken "before, during, or after your other actions in the round." So you could take it during your swift/immediate action. So no matter how little time an action takes, there is time during it that you can make ANOTHER action... Heck, you could do it during an AoO you make on your round...Also, if you look under the chart of example actions and whether they provoke, the 5' step falls under "No Action." The 5' step is an exception in virtually every regard.Miscellaneous Actions
The following actions take a variable amount of time to accomplish or otherwise work differently than other actions.Take 5-Foot Step
the chart doesn't match with the text.
"The following actions take a variable amount of time to accomplish or otherwise work differently than other actions." So the section calls it an action.."You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round." How can there be "other actions" is 5' step itself isn't an action?
So I'd say the chart is mistaken, as more than once in the text calls it an action. Secondly, the fact that it acts "differently than other actions" doesn't matter. Under your definition of time, an action is the smallest unit of time. As 5' step is an action, it means it's a smaller unit of time than all other actions as you can do it during those actions. And since immediate actions can be done at "any time", that'd mean they can happen during other action in the same time like a 5' step.
|
Feather fall is an immediate action. It interrupts falling.
No, Feather Fall does not interrupt "falling." You are still falling while Feather Fall is activated. The falling is just at a much slower and safer pace.
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.
Both of your examples are correct.
I think it's pretty simple- immediate action rule says these actions can be "taken at any time."
What time is between monday and tuesday?
|
|
What time is between monday and tuesday?
This question is not helpful...the immediate action doesn't disrupt another's action inherently; it only allows the person using the action to take an action (however the action taken could act in an interupting way).
It's like going back in time...it's just impossible. Once something is done, it's done, and nothing can change it. So if an enemy resolves their spell before the player chooses to take his immediate action, then the spell has already been resolved.
|
|
1) How fast is an immediate action? Can it interrupt things?
2) What is the air speed velocity of
an unladen swallowFireall 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?
Good questions, but combat isn't based on phases or time in this manner. I remember these sorts of truth tables during my 2ed. days.
Immediate actions exist to "Counter" actions after they have been performed. To negate an action. Falling, full attacks, doesn't matter.
No. Immediate action says nothing at all about countering anything. it says nothing at all about past actions or time travel. With your logic, you can counter an action last week. Sorry no.
Hear me out on this: what if "an action" is the unit of time that Pathfinder operates on? That is to say, there is no unit of time smaller than an action.We already know this is false. A 5' step can be taken "before, during, or after your other actions in the round." So you could take it during your swift/immediate action. So no matter how little time an action takes, there is time during it that you can make ANOTHER action... Heck, you could do it during an AoO you make on your round...Also, if you look under the chart of example actions and whether they provoke, the 5' step falls under "No Action." The 5' step is an exception in virtually every regard.Miscellaneous Actions
The following actions take a variable amount of time to accomplish or otherwise work differently than other actions.Take 5-Foot Step
the chart doesn't match with the text.
"The following actions take a variable amount of time to accomplish or otherwise work differently than other actions." So the section calls it an action..
"You can take a 5-foot step before, during, or after your other actions in the round." How can there be "other actions" is 5' step itself isn't an action?So I'd say the chart is mistaken, as more than once in the text calls it an action. Secondly, the fact that it acts "differently than other actions" doesn't matter. Under your definition of time, an action is the smallest unit of time. As 5' step is an action, it means it's a smaller unit of time than all other actions as you can do it during those actions. And since immediate actions can be done at "any time", that'd mean they can happen during other action in the same time like a 5' step.
"Can be taken concurrently with other actions" appears to be a way in which it acts "differently from other actions." You're right that the chart and the text don't match. There are a lot of examples of that problem in the CRB. I'm inclined to say the section header of "Miscellaneous Actions" is less applicable as it lumps the 5' step in with feats and skills, whereas the chart has it lumped with delay. The 5' step is a unicorn in the system, but feats and skills are herds of pegasi by comparison.
|
|
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 **
Another good question, but since combat isn't done in phases, and the RAW say a hit and damage occur at same time, then the shield cannot be activated after the hit has occurred.
Spells which do not have a separate event like rays do not have an additional opportunity afterward to cast EFS and still be protected because the effect and targeting have occurred.This isn't satisfactorily settled in the rules for some, so please click the FAQ on this post.
This is like saying climate change is false because 1% of scientists say it is despite 99% saying it's true.
But I'd also argue that if 25% of this community are unsure about the ruling, the devs should FAQ it.
I feel like his argument is similar to the aqueous sphere+Hideous laughter interaction. "It doesn't explicitly say you drown!" but you do because you are laughing under water. People don't always know the implications of rules they create but that doesn't mean they function differently.
You don't stop breathing while laughing, just like singers don't stop breathing while singing.
"Can be taken concurrently with other actions" appears to be a way in which it acts "differently from other actions." You're right that the chart and the text don't match. There are a lot of examples of that problem in the CRB. I'm inclined to say the section header of "Miscellaneous Actions" is less applicable as it lumps the 5' step in with feats and skills, whereas the chart has it lumped with delay. The 5' step is a unicorn in the system, but feats and skills are herds of pegasi by comparison.
Well we know it can't be a 'not an action' because those are "are considered an inherent part of doing something else" but it clear states it can be done before or after your actions and doesn't have to be part of an action. That alone means the chart is incorrect and then you add the other instances where it's called an action...
And in the long run, it's being a unicorn or pegasi doesn't it's being a creature [a moment of time].
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At any time from *this* time forward, that is. Says nothing about going into the past, even if that past is one second.At any time means at any time.
Well time travel is quite real. All you have to do is look at the defending weapon property.
You MUST, "As a free action, chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon."The weapon only work if you wield it...
The FAQ says you must attack with said weapon to activate the power.
So you MUST attack with it before you make a free action that has to happen before you use it...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What time is between monday and tuesday?This question is not helpful...
It is.
If you look through the thread there's a lot of ambiguity on how interupty immediate actions can be. My point here is that while there is some ambiguity here, the most interupty option is specifically a no according to the rules. Where the rules wind up from there is a LOT messier and gray though. In order for the spell to be blocked you must have the Shield up before tuesday. If its still monday, the caster can pick another target.
Mostus Interuptus
Split the spell picking a target and the spell coming into effect
Be cast between the attack roll is declared and when it is made
Be cast as an attack roll is made
Be cast during the casting of the spell
Be cast in between peoples different actions (attack move standard full)
Be cast only in between peoples turns
DMV sloths
It's like going back in time...it's just impossible.
Its not going back in time. Its the player trying to make up for the DM not describing every single thing that was happening fast enough for the player to hit the buzzer. The character knows how the laws of physics are working (and if you're switching dms, how the laws of physics are working today)
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
This is like saying climate change is false because 1% of scientists say it is despite 99% saying it's true.
But I'd also argue that if 25% of this community are unsure about the ruling, the devs should FAQ it.
There are definitely 25% or more unsure on EFS.
Mostly considering in every PVP game I've played the concept of interrupting an attack was used. Every time I've seen this used in a game (Rise of the Runelords), it was also used to interrupt an attack.
despite 99% saying it's true
There's NooOOOOOooo position with a 99% approval rating here. Answers are all over the place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
despite 99% saying it's trueThere's NooOOOOOooo position with a 99% approval rating here.
LOL the number is over 1% for things like 'is the world flat?'
Real CNN news article: "Rapper B.o.B thinks the Earth is flat, has photographs to prove it".
On EFS, it seems more like 50/50%. 1/2 allow it interrupt attacks and the other effectively make it useless by just changing targets.
|
|
1/2 allow it interrupt attacks and the other effectively make it useless by just changing targets.
Effectively useless? The caster is still completely immune to the attack. It is STILL the BEST defensive spell in the game.
I honestly feel like it's the same crowd that didn't want pummeling lances, spirited charge barbarians, Sacred fists in full plate, or any other of things they considered "Over powered" because they weren't RAI.
Well you thought wrong. I don't care if an option is powerful and embrace the farthest rules will legally take me. But I think it is very obvious there is no difference in time between the target of a spell and the effect of a spell. The Monday and Tuesday example is pretty much spot on. There is no point in time between those days. As BNW said if you cast it on Monday a target can be picked because the spell hasn't happened yet and if you cast it on Tuesday the effect has already happened.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's funny people want this to not work. I honestly feel like it's the same crowd that didn't want pummeling lances, spirited charge barbarians, Sacred fists in full plate, or any other of things they considered "Over powered" because they weren't RAI.
And stat stacking.
You mean like every time the RAI/Less power crowd was right?
In this case it's clearly RAI that EFS protects the caster and bounces an effect but because GM's hate it they are performing mental gymnastics to try and negate it.
Please answer the rules argument with a rules argument, not an ad hom.
You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect.
When.
Not before. - The spell doesn't create a swirling thing around the target that collapses in on them to take effect.
Not after. - Not every spell works like fireball
If you are fighting the midnight charmer what charms at midnight. He starts spellcasting monday. On Tuesday he selects his target. To Bird at the window the spell you need to throw up the shield before its in effect but after he has picked his target... and that time doesn't exist. Its like aiming for the space between Monday and Tuesday.
Thats a very heavy rules NO after several other rules Gray areas, and they ALL have to go in favor of the bird in the window hypothesis.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No I want things to be consistent. EFS can just be banned if you don't like the result but immediate actions being able to interrupt things is somewhat important to other effects like a few immediate action attacks which can disrupt spell casting.
I'm not saying that EFS can't interrupt things. It can! Attack rolls, certainly. I'm only saying that target/effect for some spells is not interrupt-able. Instead of overpowered, or useless, I advocate for moderate utility that depends on what kind of action it is countering.
Your version of "consistent" necessitates timey-wimey shenanigans.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You mean the point where they were clearly wrong
No. We were very clearly right. From a raw perspective a dex bonus is, gasp, a bonus. Your dex bonus is the source of your bonus. From a power perspective stat stacking is insanely good. When raw and whats reasonable for the game agree there is no other answer.
So with that track record in mind please pause, think, and listen rather than needlessly insult.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You mean the point where they were clearly wrongNo. We were very clearly right. From a raw perspective a dex bonus is, gasp, a bonus. Your dex bonus is the source of your bonus. From a power perspective stat stacking is insanely good. When raw and whats reasonable for the game agree there is no other answer.
So with that track record in mind please pause, think, and listen rather than needlessly insult.
Once again there are still bestiaries with antipaladin grave knights and oracle liches with cha to saves twice along with the half a dozen errata'ed feats which prove that it DID in fact work at one point they simply changed the stance they had on it errata was issued and enemies STILL have this functioning on undead.
They had reached a point where such errata is needed to prevent absurd stat stacking and that's OK but acting like it was always that way is simply wrong considering the undead they STILL let stack it.
Other people being wrong doesn't make you right. Paizo isn't some monolithic entity. Developers, freelancers, and editors can and do make mistakes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once again there are still bestiaries with antipaladin grave knights and oracle liches with cha to saves twice along with the half a dozen errata'ed feats which prove that it DID in fact work at one point they simply changed the stance they had on it errata was issued and enemies STILL have this functioning on undead.
What you have here is one bit of evidence that supports your position. Because of that, you assume that the rules, and everything published is perfect and that you don't need to acknowledge, address, or think about all of the arguments and evidence that go the other way. That's a very poor decision making model. It allows you to get whatever answer you want simply by starting at the one piece of evidence that gets you the answer you want and ignoring everything else.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the original question of this thread "a guide for how to decide what to do"
Here are my thoughts generally.
- immediate action can happen anytime
- some events give you time to react (attacks, falling)
- some are ambiguous (fireball, rays)
- some are more ambiguous (spells like feeble mind which don't describe a physical que)
The problem becomes, with the last two, it is unclear that once you identify the spell if there is anytime to tell you are being targeted.
I think this is the original situation being debate. I hope I restated it clearly. So, I propose that if the character is openly being hostile not trying to conceal it target than EFS is fair game. Example the GM says "the wizard is not impressed with you magic and says "let me show you true power puny Sorcerer"". Than you can use force sphere because you know you are the target.
If there is no overt telegraphing have a simple hunch sense motive check. It would go like this 1) You identified the feeblemind spell. 2) roll sense motive 3) gm gives feed back "you think that he is targeting you for killing his ally" .
I don't have strong opinions on the rules debate and I don't know that there is an answer trough RAW so this is my suggestion on how to resolve it that will satisfy gms and players and add to story telling in combat.
|
|
Here are my thoughts generally.
- immediate action can happen anytime
- some events give you time to react (attacks, falling)
- some are ambiguous (fireball, rays)
- some are more ambiguous (spells like feeble mind which don't describe a physical que)The problem becomes, with the last two, it is unclear that once you identify the spell if there is anytime to tell you are being targeted.
That's a pretty good summary, Grandlounge. I'd just add that both rays and fireball include an attack roll (specifically a ranged touch attack), so you should probably be able to react to them.
As for feeblemind, you can probably tell the BBEG *wants* to target you, but if you eliminate yourself as a valid target, the BBEG should be able to take out his frustration on the barbarian (not much of a change, though, right? :P ).
|
|
That's a pretty good summary, Grandlounge. I'd just add that both rays and fireball include an attack roll (specifically a ranged touch attack), so you should probably be able to react to them.
As for feeblemind, you can probably tell the BBEG *wants* to target you, but if you eliminate yourself as a valid target, the BBEG should be able to take out his frustration on the barbarian (not much of a change, though, right? :P ).
** spoiler omitted **
I included these because they were brought up earlier. I think someone said we don't know how fast these travel. It could be the speed of light. That's why I put them as intermediate cases.
|
|
I included these because they were brought up earlier. I think someone said we don't know how fast these travel. It could be the speed of light. That's why I put them as intermediate cases.
That's a pretty good summary, Grandlounge. I'd just add that both rays and fireball include an attack roll (specifically a ranged touch attack), so you should probably be able to react to them.
As for feeblemind, you can probably tell the BBEG *wants* to target you, but if you eliminate yourself as a valid target, the BBEG should be able to take out his frustration on the barbarian (not much of a change, though, right? :P ).
** spoiler omitted **
I can see rays being a grey area between the black and white extremes.
For consistency, I prefer to lump them with other attacks though.
|
|
I can see rays being a grey area between the black and white extremes.
For consistency, I prefer to lump them with other attacks though.
I see that I tried to write my guidelines as broadly as possible. Hopefully it can than be used by people on all sides of the debate with minor changes. You illustrate one here, so thanks.
Effectively useless? The caster is still completely immune to the attack. It is STILL the BEST defensive spell in the game.
People are saying that putting up just means that the another person is targeted... that means your spell did nothing as the attack went off as normal. All it did was 'pass the buck' to someone else.
SO do you think the spell was created to pass off attacks to other teammates? That the spell really isn't a protection spell but an attack redirection one? IMO the spell was meant to actually protect you not pass the pain off to someone else. That's more in line with the betrayal line of feats...
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once again there are still bestiaries with antipaladin grave knights and oracle liches with cha to saves twice
Stat blocks for creatures and monsters are written by interns and non-developers generally.
So every monster/npc box has literally hundreds of errors, in rules, in skill points assigned, in hit points, and in every other imaginable place.
It can not ever be used as a rules assertion.
|
|
Effectively useless? The caster is still completely immune to the attack. It is STILL the BEST defensive spell in the game.
People are saying that putting up just means that the another person is targeted... that means your spell did nothing as the attack went off as normal. All it did was 'pass the buck' to someone else.
SO do you think the spell was created to pass off attacks to other teammates? That the spell really isn't a protection spell but an attack redirection one? IMO the spell was meant to actually protect you not pass the pain off to someone else. That's more in line with the betrayal line of feats...
You are conflating attacks and targeted spells and that is confusing the discussion in this thread.
Please don't paraphrase as much. It could be construed as a straw-man argument.