Immediate Actions


Rules Questions

301 to 322 of 322 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

James Risner wrote:

.

It can not ever be used as a rules assertion.

Well it CAN, just recognize that its probably one of the least conclusive forms of evidence.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Risner wrote:

.

It can not ever be used as a rules assertion.

Well it CAN, just recognize that its probably one of the least conclusive forms of evidence.

Fair.

It can be used.

I won't accept it and neither will most others and the developers.


KingOfAnything wrote:
You are conflating attacks and targeted spells and that is confusing the discussion in this thread.

It is? Can you point out these confused people? Did anyone here take what I said the wrong way?

I think that anyone that follows the series of posts that lead to the post you quoted understand what we're talking about. If not, I'm sure you'll be around to tell them they are doing it wrong. ;)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Ragoz wrote:

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...

Silly me, I thought the purpose of the spell was "Normally this spell is used to buy time for dealing with avalanches, floods, and rock-slides", not the " I'm immune to all forms of targeting at all times and will fizzle spells even though spell fizzle is a hardly explored emergent property of the system and never actually described "

Typically if a defense spell makes someone not target you it's done its job in spades. In a world where your interpretation was true everyone with enough spellcraft/ know. Arcana / battlefield experience would never target a mage of sufficient power unless it was a quickened ray of disintegrate.

The raw rule of not separating target from resolution is solid, and it promotes game balance, those who argue against don't have much evidence and seem to only want to play God casters on easy mode.


Trimalchio wrote:
Silly me, I thought the purpose of the spell was "Normally this spell is used to buy time for dealing with avalanches, floods, and rock-slides", not the " I'm immune to all forms of targeting at all times and will fizzle spells even though spell fizzle is a hardly explored emergent property of the system and never actually described "

Silly you, you cut off the quote before the important part. "though it is also handy in dealing with ambushes" it's CLEARLY not limited to "avalanches, floods, and rock-slides".

Trimalchio wrote:
Typically if a defense spell makes someone not target you it's done its job in spades. In a world where your interpretation was true everyone with enough spellcraft/ know. Arcana / battlefield experience would never target a mage of sufficient power unless it was a quickened ray of disintegrate.

Good to know all mages wear signs and name tags identifying themselves as mages and identifies how many EFS spells they have ready. And personally, I don't find a redirecting damage/effect spell falls under my definition of a defensive spell. Also note that an EFS stops spells BOTH ways so a single enemy spell lock up the casters immediate action and spells unless he drops it and then he has to put up ANOTHER one if cast at again... SO the mage is burning through a 4th level spell/round?

Trimalchio wrote:
The raw rule of not separating target from resolution is solid

It is?

Trimalchio wrote:
promotes game balance

it does?

Trimalchio wrote:
those who argue against don't have much evidence and seem to only want to play God casters on easy mode.

AH... I hate to break it to you but bad guys can be casters so those "God casters on easy mode" works on both sides. Do PC casters become god like when bad guys can use EFS against them? this works both ways so I don't understand this argument in the least...

As to evidence, I still haven't seen a rule where the cut-off is for "any time". Until I see that, I don't see how YOU have any more evidence than I do.

Sovereign Court

1 person 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
graystone wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:
those who argue against don't have much evidence and seem to only want to play God casters on easy mode.
AH... I hate to break it to you but bad guys can be casters so those "God casters on easy mode" works on both sides. Do PC casters become god like when bad guys can use EFS against them? this works both ways so I don't understand this argument in the least...

An ungenerous person might say that you don't seem to understand very much. But, you may just have missed it. Early discussion covered the action economy disparity between PCs and their foes that strongly favors EFS as a player option if it works like you want it to. Moderating the power a little helps both sides offensively, but balances the scales a little in terms of defense.

graystone wrote:
As to evidence, I still haven't seen a rule where the cut-off is for "any time". Until I see that, I don't see how YOU have any more evidence than I do.

You keep bringing up "any time." Nobody has disputed that.

We keep responding with the rules that show there isn't a time between target and effect.
Have you evidence to show that "when it comes into effect" doesn't actually mean "when it comes into effect"? Because it seems like you are ignoring the meaning of words in favor of your interpretation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:

You keep bringing up "any time." Nobody has disputed that.

We keep responding with the rules that show there isn't a time between target and effect.
Have you evidence to show that "when it comes into effect" doesn't actually mean "when it comes into effect"? Because it seems like you are ignoring the meaning of words in favor of your interpretation.

You keep responding with your opinion that there isn't time between the effect manifesting and the effect resolving.

If you could ready an action in response to being targeted by a spell (which I don't think anyone is disputing,) that means there is time to react to that event, ergo, there is time to use an immediate action.

Let's be really clear. This is a 4th level spell. It's an extremely limited resource that uses up your one immediate action, and therefor your swift action on your next turn as well.

This might shock you, but even feeling 100% certain that the spell works this way, *no one in my gaming group cares enough to use it.* Sure, you can disrupt an enemy action. There are dozens of ways to do that which don't involve burning a 4th level spell, and even if you do, you've still spent a valuable resource towards defeating the encounter.

Spending all of that to achieve nothing more than screwing over another party member is pointless.

EDIT: That said, we're all arguing in circles at this point. People on either "side" have conceded that it could be the opposite interpretation. This discussion has ceased to be constructive, and this will be my final contribution to this thread.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Gulthor wrote:
Spending all of that to achieve nothing more than screwing over another party member is pointless.

That's only the case with a subset of spells. EFS can work as a perfect defense against many magic and all mundane attacks. This makes EFS much more tactical than either "stops anything" or "stops nothing."

Gulthor wrote:

You keep responding with your opinion that there isn't time between the effect manifesting and the effect resolving.

If you could ready an action in response to being targeted by a spell (which I don't think anyone is disputing,) that means there is time to react to that event, ergo, there is time to use an immediate action.

I keep citing the Core Rulebook about target being chosen when a spell comes into effect.

Readied actions explicitly break timing considerations. They happen before their triggers. That's not the case for immediate actions.

Quote:
EDIT: That said, we're all arguing in circles at this point. People on either "side" have conceded that it could be the opposite interpretation. This discussion has ceased to be constructive, and this will be my final contribution to this thread.

I'm mostly trying to clear up misconceptions about the consequences of the various interpretations at this point. Regarding circular arguments, I think BigNorseWolf refers to them as the dancing kobolds?


Gulthor wrote:


You keep responding with your opinion that there isn't time between the effect manifesting and the effect resolving.

Not all opinions are equal. Dismissing it as an opinion is posturing, not an argument and not a point.

You need to give an alternative rule, or an alternative meaning to the rules already quoted ad nauseum. Without doing that you don't have an argument.

Quote:
If you could ready an action in response to being targeted by a spell (which I don't think anyone is disputing,) that means there is time to react to that event, ergo, there is time to use an immediate action.

This does not follow. At all.

First it is VERY questionable whether you can ready in response to being targeted. There's (currently) no visual indication that you've been targeted with a spell, so what exactly is your character reacting to?

Even if You can ready an action for when you are targeted by a spell, since a targeted action occurs at the same time some readied actions won't do you any good. If you want to ready a removed paralysis on yourself, either you're not paralyzed and thus can't remove anything, or you're stuck and can't complete your action.

There's also a lot of ambiguity with how this works in general. There's no rule for what happens if your readied action renders someone elses action null and void. Thats a gray area of the rules, but denying someone the ability to alter their actions is the most problematic and abusing (Dancing kobold conga line!)

ALL of those have to go your way Two of them are very gray areas and one of them has some pretty straitfoward rules text saying no.

Quote:
Let's be really clear. This is a 4th level spell. It's an extremely limited resource that uses up your one immediate action, and therefor your swift action on your next turn as well.

If they were a swashbuckler that would be a problem. But as a caster their turn is going to end and they're going to get it back without really missing it.

Quote:
Spending all of that to achieve nothing more than screwing over another party member is pointless.

"Incomming feeblemind...CRAP! I like my brain! *turtles up*

Feeblemind hits fred the fighter instead

"...Meh. No difference really.. combat expertise was good but you still hit things with a pointy stick well enough"

Quote:
This discussion has ceased to be constructive, and this will be my final contribution to this thread.

What i would like to see is some rules evidence for splitting the atom of targeting and effect.


Dancing kobolds is a result of some interpretations of the rules arguments where a readied action can negate The action that triggered it.

Kobold with dagger wins init: Readies an action
Dave the barbarian advances 20 feet. Swings
Kobolds readied action to stab and 5 foot step back when dave swung goes off.

According to some people, Dave has lost his action. He's lost his move when he moved and his standard to swing, so he gets stabbed, auto misses, and he's done.

Its called the dancing kobold because the kobold can KEEP doing this long enough for the party bard to break out an instrument and serenade the pair.


Gulthor wrote:

If you could ready an action in response to being targeted by a spell (which I don't think anyone is disputing,) that means there is time to react to that event, ergo, there is time to use an immediate action.

You would be wrong on this point. Unless it is a spell that requires an attack roll, I would not allow a readied action to go between a spell's completion and its effect. I'm quite confident I'm not the only one who feels this way.

BNW wrote:


Its called the dancing kobold because the kobold can KEEP doing this long enough for the party bard to break out an instrument and serenade the pair.

Dancing kobold is a myth. The fact that the bard doesn't attack and kill the kobold, but instead serenades them, only serves to perpetuate the myth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azothath wrote:
Tindalen wrote:
...
thanks... I'll follow up on this

hmmm... so interesting points all around and some distractions.

...more thread comments, some I read, some I didn't...

I have to say much of the debate can be settled depending upon your view of the d20 model. If you believe that the round is quantized to 6 seconds (and that the to hit charts are loosely based on a 5% chance of hitting per round) then you realize that you cannot talk about time within the round. Initiative then becomes a contrivance to order play and the sequence of events without addressing the time that they occur or their duration. Einstein isn't required, just some understanding about mathematics.
Then again there are those that believe that the game is just a bunch of rules and it really doesn't have to be consistent or make sense.

I'd have to say that immediate means just that in the simple sense. The more you divide up the actions into discrete parts the more opportunity to claim an immediate action can take place... until you hit an infinitesimal. So it's really a GM call as to where the sensible boundary is. One has to take the limit as the difference goes to zero <grin>. I think we all know that designers make rules up and that sometimes it leads to silly conclusions if you take it too far. So one just has to settle for something sensible at some point. Magic in particular has wonky consequences as spell are essentially loopholes in rules and physics.

I think once you declare spellcasting it's time to declare the spellcraft checks and immediate action. If a person waits until they are affected it's too late unless there is a to hit roll, the spell is already in effect as then they know they have been targeted. I think it's also the prudent thing to act when you notice spellcasting, not waiting until you are in the area of effect. So saying "If the caster targets me with a spell I..." is not a viable ready or translates to "If the caster begins doing something that I believe is spellcasting I...", only with spellcraft could you be a bit more specific.

Personally, my concern is more about how parsed spellcasting actions are compared to normal actions (such as swinging a sword).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As far as EmergFrcSphere making the caster immune to attack... this is not rigorously true as there are exceptions including those that can go through a wall of force (gaze attacks) or around them (teleportation/planar).
Since the force effect simply merges TO the ground, spells that effect the environment such as Rock to Mud should affect the area under the globe. The caster would also be able to Meld into Stone on the floor, incorporeals and earth glide could go through the floor etc etc... so there are several ways to get around the Line of Effect(LoE) issue.
I've also mentioned that attacking the ground at the base of the globe would open up LoE.
I agree that an attacker with a pointy object is going to find it rather difficult if he just attacks the hemisphere.
Luckily Emergency Force Sphere(4th){hemisphere, hrd:20 hp:10*CL} at 7th level this is just Hrd:20, HP:70 which should take only 5 attacks at 35 damage per... so 1 or 2 rounds at most with pointy objects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azothath wrote:
s far as EmergFrcSphere making the caster immune to attack... this is not rigorously true as there are exceptions including those that can go through a wall of force (gaze attacks) or around them (teleportation/planar).

Its close enough to attack immunity to really not make a difference. Yes, once the wizard is in the fishbowl there are a few (Rare) ways to attack them.

But people don't have a problem with "you're in a fishbowl i can't get you" the problem is "i tried to get you with my standard action and now there's a fishbowl in the way (and unless the DM is metagaming horribly) and it blocked the attack". EFS easily blocks 99% of attacks when it goes up: no roll, no check, no counter. So knowing when it can get in there is incredibly important.

Scarab Sages

Seriously hard to believe this is going on so long with the same people talking about the same things.

It's obvious there isn't enough hard rules here to answer the questions. How does an immediate action work? No one actually knows as there is no actual answer.

As for the continued discussion of the spell EFS you should probably take that to the EFS thread. This one is for begging for immediate actions to be explained or at least for a group consensus to be attained.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Lorewalker wrote:
As for the continued discussion of the spell EFS you should probably take that to the EFS thread. This one is for begging for immediate actions to be explained or at least for a group consensus to be attained.

This thread was spawned off the discussion on the PFS board about Emergency Force Sphere. You'll notice the examples in the original post bring up the spell. It's pretty germane, and the most contentious immediate action out there.


Lorewalker wrote:

Seriously hard to believe this is going on so long with the same people talking about the same things.

It's obvious there isn't enough hard rules here to answer the questions. How does an immediate action work? No one actually knows as there is no actual answer.

As for the continued discussion of the spell EFS you should probably take that to the EFS thread. This one is for begging for immediate actions to be explained or at least for a group consensus to be attained.

the clear consensus is it's up to your GM.

Scarab Sages

KingOfAnything wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
As for the continued discussion of the spell EFS you should probably take that to the EFS thread. This one is for begging for immediate actions to be explained or at least for a group consensus to be attained.
This thread was spawned off the discussion on the PFS board about Emergency Force Sphere. You'll notice the examples in the original post bring up the spell. It's pretty germane, and the most contentious immediate action out there.

Yes it was spawned from, as in set apart from, as in separate from. There is a lot of bogging down on the main point due to discussion of that spell instead of discussion of the action. The spell which already has a thread.

It is germane to ask "when can I cast EFS", but it is not germane to continue with "but should you be able to EFS, can the enemy choose another target for their spell, was EFS written to include combat use in its base assumptions?". And that little list there has been brought up all within this page of the discussion.

Scarab Sages

Azothath wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:

Seriously hard to believe this is going on so long with the same people talking about the same things.

It's obvious there isn't enough hard rules here to answer the questions. How does an immediate action work? No one actually knows as there is no actual answer.

As for the continued discussion of the spell EFS you should probably take that to the EFS thread. This one is for begging for immediate actions to be explained or at least for a group consensus to be attained.

the clear consensus is it's up to your GM.

Actually, that is the only current route of solution. A consensus would come about if the discussion finally boiled down to "here is how we agree it should work so GMs have a framework to base their decisions on".

What these discussions are great for is digging up all the little rules that could possibly be relevant to the object of discussion and then making them available to those who want to know how a thing should be, or could be judged at a table.

That and if you really enjoy arguing, they are great for that too.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
bbangerter wrote:
Dancing kobold is a myth. The fact that the bard doesn't attack and kill the kobold, but instead serenades them, only serves to perpetuate the myth.

Who says the bard is an ally of the barbarian?

Kobolds can be bards, too.

"Two, four, six, eight.
Who do we appreciate?
MEEPO!"


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

From a balance standpoint, remember that the mage in the efs loses a standard action at some point to get back in the game. Either they've got to dismiss it, or some other serious method of getting out. Otherwise they've just sequestered themselves.

Not that this changes how the rules work, but before getting too worried about the specific spell, it's useful to look at what is consumed for it to be useful. Here, it's an immediate action (probably trivial), a 4th-level spell slot (possibly serious), and a standard action (definitely serious).


The usual tactic is to dimensional slide (its electric) out as a teleportation wizard, or start summoning earth elementals.

301 to 322 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.