| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could we get an official ruling on if a player can interrupt an enemies spell casting by using a readied action?
The CRB pg 331 implies that this is possible, however previous posts by designers have given pause to the RAW. (Though I must state that those posts are prior to the official release of the CRB and may have been part of development).
Can you interrupt an enemies spell casting with a readied action and if you can, would you please provide examples of the readied action vs spell casting and vs other actions (ie.. use of the automatic property, blast property, etc.) giving both offensive and defensive examples?
Thanks in advance!
You are most at risk of taking damage while casting when a spell’s casting time is 1 round or longer, you have provoked an attack of opportunity, or a foe readied an action to attack you when you began to cast. However, if you are taking ongoing damage (such as if you are bleeding or on fire), your spells are not disrupted in this way. <---- that makes it sound like you can ready to interrupt spells
your readied action is purely defensive, such as choosing the total defense action if a foe you are facing shoots at you, it occurs just before the event that triggered it. If the readied action is not a purely defensive action, such as shooting a foe if he shoots at you, it takes place immediately after the triggering event. If you come to your next turn and have not yet performed your readied action, you don’t get to take the readied action (though you can ready the same action again).
<----- This makes it sound like you can't ready to interrupt spells, because the spell goes off and then you shoot them and then well.. its a little late you're already on fire. I suppose you COULD technically ready to shoot if they start a one round spell, but like a lot of readies that's completely pointless because you'd have your normal turn in there anyway and could move and shoot or shoot twice or full round magic missile them in the face instead.
<----- This makes it sound like you can't ready to interrupt spells, because the spell goes off and then you shoot them and then well.. its a little late you're already on fire. I suppose you COULD technically ready to shoot if they start a one round spell, but like a lot of readies that's completely pointless because you'd have your normal turn in there anyway and could move and shoot or shoot twice or full round magic missile them in the face instead.
That's the problem BNW. The wording is open to interpretation. The event that triggers the action is the 'begin to cast' event. Not the 'cast a spell' event. Once the enemy 'begins to cast' a spell, your action would trigger and you would be allowed to attack the spellcaster and perhaps interrupt the spell through damage.
Further you could actually word the trigger so that your actions is considered a defensive action. "I ready an action to defend myself from spells by firing my weapon at any spell caster who begins to cast a spell". This would clearly be a defensive action which would give me the option of firing my weapon at a caster who begins to cast a spell.
Hence the request in the rules forum for clarification of the rules in the CRB.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No amount of careful wording can ever make shooting someone into a purely defensive action.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's the problem BNW. The wording is open to interpretation. The event that triggers the action is the 'begin to cast' event.
That's well beyond interpretation, well into rules lawyering and on the border with the duchy of houserules.
There is no "begin to cast" on a standard action spell. There's casting and there's not casting. That passage very specifically says that you go after casting. Just like you can't fire when someone "begins to shoot".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if the casting action is a summon that lasts one full round, then you can definitely shoot them before they're done casting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if the casting action is a summon that lasts one full round, then you can definitely shoot them before they're done casting.
Yes but why would you EVER ready to do that when you could instead just have your regular turn and have a full round action to interrupt the spell instead?
Well, if the casting action is a summon that lasts one full round, then you can definitely shoot them before they're done casting.Yes but why would you EVER ready to do that when you could instead just have your regular turn and have a full round action to interrupt the spell instead?
I didn't say it was a smart thing to do, just that you could, and that it would make sense with the text mentioning the ready action trigger.
No amount of careful wording can ever make shooting someone into a purely defensive action.
"A person broke in to my home and was trying to kill me. I shot him in defense of my life."
You sure about that?
That's the problem BNW. The wording is open to interpretation. The event that triggers the action is the 'begin to cast' event.
That's well beyond interpretation, well into rules lawyering and on the border with the duchy of houserules.
There is no "begin to cast" on a standard action spell. There's casting and there's not casting. That passage very specifically says that you go after casting. Just like you can't fire when someone "begins to shoot".
I couldn't disagree more adamantly. Every action has a beginning. Even something as simple waking up. If you want to get right down to the nitty gritty of things you can break down every thing you do in to a series of actions and this set of actions has a beginning, a middle, and an ending which constitute an entire action.
Putting on your pants has a beginning. You lift your leg to insert your leg in to the open pants leg. You then proceed to place your leg into the open pants leg, follow those same steps to for the other leg. Pull up the pants and then buckle your britches. Casting isn't an instantaneous action.
Lastly, if it didn't have a 'begin to cast' as part of the entire standard action why would they have given that AS the example on CRB 331?
Goes like this. Player declares he is casting a spell for his standard action. Begins to cast his spell (if this is the conditional trigger for a readied action, the action would be allowed to happen, if it's not a trigger there's no point in worrying about this. Further this is the moment in time when a melee attacker who has a reaction available and threatens the square the caster is in then that player may take an attack of opportunity which would then, possibly, interrupt the spell.
If there's no 'begin to cast' why do the RAW contradict this claim?
"Began to cast" only has value in the context of that sentence which is talking about spells that take 1 round or longer to cast, not single-action spells.
You can still interrupt a caster offensively. If you threaten a caster, you get an AoO reaction before they cast the spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I couldn't disagree more adamantly. Every action has a beginning.
Not neccesarily in a turn based game.
Definitely not in the context of a readied action.
This rule clearly and specifically exists to not let you do what you're doing by declaring the start of the action as a separate entity from finishing the action. If your reading the rules completely invalidates the rules you're supposed to be reading then you've read them wrong.
Lastly, if it didn't have a 'begin to cast' as part of the entire standard action why would they have given that AS the example on CRB 331?
Because the core rulebook was written and re written 37 times and at some point that was going to be a thing and they changed how it works.
Because it was written by fallible human(oid) beings who make errors. People have got to remember that the rules are some infallible Aristotelian computer code that's completely consistent.
OR spellcasting is supposed to be a specific exception. You can legitimately read the contradiction there and resolve it in favor of one passage over the other. That would solve it without tossing the ysoki out with the bathwater the way "start of an action" would.
I feel like its pretty clear that the intention was that normal spells that have a casting time of less than 1 round would not be interruptible unless the target was subject to an ongoing damage effect like bleed. If so no caster would ever get off a spell unless it was the first round of combat and they won initiative.
I also agree with BigNorseWolf. The passages of rules text he highlighted state the order of action, reaction when your readying a action or target of one.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, when the rules standard to act before a trigger is "PURELY defensive action," your motives and legal justification don't make an attack qualify. More importantly, any rules interpretation where two players, playing as characters with the same abilities, could attempt the same action and have it only work for the player who says the right Magic Words of Justification is nonsense.
I'd also like to point out that while the developer answer was given before the CRB street date, it was given less than two months before hardcovers started shipping. I think the odds of a rule change between that answer from Owen and the finalized CRB being sent to the printer is extremely low.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Definitely not in the context of a readied action.
This rule clearly and specifically exists to not let you do what you're doing by declaring the start of the action as a separate entity from finishing the action. If your reading the rules completely invalidates the rules you're supposed to be reading then you've read them wrong.
Actually it does not. I am not declaring the 'start of an action'. I am declaring a triggering event. The CRB 331 explicitly talks about spell-casting requiring concentration and that it CAN be interrupted. There is nothing in the RAW that says a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action can't be interrupted. That's WHY this discussion exists and it's being asked for clarification. The fact that spell casting is the EXCEPTION as an action that can be interrupted (any other actions in the ENTIRE game have ANY entries about interrupting them?) lends more credibility to the idea that the INTENT is that a spell CAN be interrupted regardless of it's casting time.
Because it was written by fallible human(oid) beings who make errors. People have got to remember that the rules are some infallible Aristotelian computer code that's completely consistent.OR spellcasting is supposed to be a specific exception. You can legitimately read the contradiction there and resolve it in favor of one passage over the other. That would solve it without tossing the ysoki out with the bathwater the way "start of an action" would.
This is quite fun. Do you really want to hang your hat on this stand? To say that it was written by fallible people doesn't support your interpretation. It simply means that since they ARE fallible, then the posts by Owen could be just as fallible and the RAW are correct.
And yes, spell casting IS the specific example. It SPECIFICALLY talks about your concentration while casting being interuptable and the spell caster losing the spell. No other action in the game has such specific wording. That makes spell casting the exception and hence the request for a ruling.
All that being said, spell casting in this game isn't great. Spell casters have, probably, the hardest time in the game for resolving conflict. And the RAW (without exercising the hubris necessary to interpret for the developers) stand with some confusion to them. As written it makes spell casting even rougher if a spell with a casting time of a standard action could be interrupted.
However the issue isn't the intent. It's the specific wording. Honestly I am prepared to accept the ruling either way simply because it would close a gap in the rules. If the developers ruled that a readied offensive action can't interrupt a spell with a standard action as it's cast time, that's fine. If the ruling is that the CRB as written stands, then I'm fine with that as well.
Lastly I will go over the wording of the Concentration and Interrupted Spells so there isn't any confusion about RAW and RAI.
To cast a spell u must concentrate. The LENGTH OF TIME you must concentrate to cast a spell is specified in the Casting Time entry in the spells description. (By saying length of time this denotes that the spell has a beginning, casting, and ending event associated with the spell. There are no exclusions to this series of events based on casting time). Your foes can interrupt your spell-casting in a few ways, as described below. (It doesn't exclude any spells with any specific casting time from the qualifying statement that you can be interrupted).
It then outlines attacks of opportunities.
The next 2 paragraphs are why we are discussing this. "if you are casting a spell and you take damage from either a successful attack that targeted your AC OR from an effect that you failed a saving throw against, the spell fails. (Again, it doesn't exclude any spells based on casting time).
You are MOST at risk of taking damage while casting when (A) a spell's casting time is 1 round or longer, (B) you have provoked an attack of opportunity, or (C) a foe readied an action to attack you when you BEGIN TO CAST. However if you are taking ongoing damage from an (effect) your spells are not interrupted. (For the final time. There is absolutely NO wording in the CRB which EXCLUDES spells with a standard action as a casting time from being uninterruptible. That is simply a RAI interpretation.)
And one more time for the sake of completeness, the wording on the readied action as an offensive action says. "If the readied action is not a purely defensive action, it takes place IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRIGGERING EVENT." (Immediately means instantly in this case. Not after the foe or player has completed the standard action and the spell has been cast.)
Cmon Starfinder developers. Put this one to bed.
P.S. I actually hope the developers make an exclusion of spells with a standard action or reaction action cast time being able to be interrupted. Spell casting is already painful enough as it is. That's my inner GM speaking. Not my inner Rules Lawyer speaking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually it does not. I am not declaring the 'start of an action'. I am declaring a triggering event.
Unless you declare the start of the action to be something separate from the action then declaring your triggering event will not work. If casting a standard action spell is an unbreakable unit of planck time then you declare the start of the action to be the trigger then it doesn't work
[start of cast, End of cast] then you shoot.
You absolutely need
[start of the cast] then you shoot [end of the cast] to be a divisible thing or you absolutely cannot interrupt the casting at all. You keep getting shunted until AFTER the spell is cast.
You are absolutely trying to do this and no discussion is possible if you refuse to recognize that fact.
The ready action rules make NO sense at all if you allow this. Everyone would declare the start of an action to be the triggering event and functionally go before the other person. No discussion of the contradiction is possible if you do not recognize how at odds this is with the rules that offensive actions go after the triggering event.
No discussion of the contradiction is possible if you do not recognize how at odds this is with the rules that offensive actions go after the triggering event.
I absolutely recognize that a readied offensive action goes after the triggering event. I simply disagree that closing a door (an action) is the same as the door closes (an event.)
An event denotes a single moment in time, not a series of actions.
Consider the 100 meter dash. We can use that as a comparable example. The action of 'running the 100 m dash' has a clear beginning (gun fires to announce that runners begin the action) a middle (sprinters run the 100m) and ending (the runners cross a finish line) all happening in around 10 seconds.
At any point along this series of actions you can pick a single event and decide to do something by readying an action of your own. I can, lets say, ready an action to throw a oil bomb (think water bomb filled with oil instead of water) onto the middle of the track when the race begins (ie.. the gun for declaring the start of the race is fired). You don't wait until they have completed the entire race before you throw the oil bomb. You throw it IMMEDIATELY after the triggering event and BEFORE the completion of the entire action (running the 100m dash).
You could say, I ready an action to fire a tranq dart with the following trigger "Once the runners cross the halfway mark I shoot a tranq dart into the lead runner". You don't fire at the beginning of the 100m dash action. or the end. But immediately after the first runner crosses the halfway mark.
The INTENT of a readied action is that you take your action (and remember you LOWER your initiative count in the initiative order) in response to another event. Either before the event or after the event (depending on a defensive or offensive action).
I never said that the start of an action is separate from the action, just that it is a piece which compromises the entirety of the action. You begin to cast a spell, are casting a spell, and finish casting a spell. Those compromise the Spell Casting action. The time it takes to complete the spell casting action is determined by the Cast time of the spell. Could be a standard action (2-4 seconds) or a full action (around 6 seconds) a reaction (less than a second) or multiple rounds (6-60 seconds or even longer).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never said that the start of an action is separate from the action, just that it is a piece which compromises the entirety of the action. You begin to cast...
Asmodean levels rules lawyering to avoid a problem is not discussion. You aren't admiting it. But you require it to be true or your idea simply doesn't work at all. The reasoning behind this has been clearly demonstrated.
The intent is that if you ready an action to shoot someone in the face, you go AFTER they do. You are trying to use a less than questionable, completely unevidenced, interpretation that completely negates that facet of readied actions with attempts at clever wording.
The rules do not work that way. They break down to whatever results you want when you do that.
You can ready attacks against and interrupt spells that have a casting time of 1 round or more. Page 334 in the CRB:
you technically can, but that's a bit of a mathematicians answer to solving the contradiction. There is absolutely zero reason why you would ever ready an action to interupt a full round spell, giving up your action this round to limit yourself to half and action next round.
It doesn't help that there weren't any one round casts in the core rulebook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The intent is that if you ready an action to shoot someone in the face, you go AFTER they do. You are trying to use a less than questionable, completely unevidenced, interpretation that completely negates that facet of readied actions with attempts at clever wording.
I am glad that you have the magical mirror which allows you to know the intent and motive of the developers.
Personally, I don't have this mirror and hence the question for the developers.
What I do have are the rules as written and the RAW are crystal clear that a spell can be interrupted. The spells casting time has no impact on it's susceptibility of being interrupted. The RAW do NOT state ANYWHERE that a spell with a casting time of a standard action is immune to being interrupted.
People INFER that it's not possible because they are stuck with the mentality that an action is sacrosanct and stands inviolate and exclusive in it's capacity to occur simultaneously with any OTHER action. (Think of it this way.. there are people who say you can't fart and sneeze at the same time..). This is both a logical fallacy and a misinterpretation of the rules as written. Actions performed by different entities CAN happen simultaneously.
I know this goes against how combat is structured but it's true nonetheless. It's rare in Starfinder for this to happen but it CAN happen.
If this discussion were about the use of the Reaction action, we wouldn't be having it as the RAW are QUITE CLEAR that an offensive reaction takes place IMMEDIATELY after the triggering ACTION. (This does mean that an attack of opportunity occurs AFTER the standard action of casting a spell. This technically means an AoO can't interrupt a spell with a casting time of a standard action or less.)
However, we aren't talking about Reactions.. we are specifically talking about the readied action. Which states that the timing is based on the EVENT that triggered it, not the action.
So for both BNW and Nimor, you have ascribed intent instead of reading and applying the RAW. Hence you haven't demonstrated that a spell with a casting time of a standard action (or less) can't be interrupted. According to RAW, ANY spell can be interrupted. ANY. If you claim otherwise you are inferring intent instead of applying RAW.
(Now.. putting on my GM hat. I don't disagree with your interpretation of intent. I don't LIKE the idea that spell casting can suffer such a crushing blow if readied actions continues to be allowed to interrupt spells with a standard action as a casting time. Like it or not, though, the RAW are pretty clear. However there is enough circumstantial evidence to infer that your understanding of the INTENT of the developers is correct, but unless they clarify, the RAW will remain to be correct. If you look at a reaction (CRB 248) it's wording on timing is eerily similar to a readied action but by changing the trigger from an action to an event has important implications on the timing of the triggered action).
It was demonstrated that one passage of the rules made it impossible to interrupt a standard action spell. Not dealing with that is trying to have your own facts, which you can't do.
It isn't a magic mirror. Its simply reading the words that are there in context with common sense and an eye for balance. It works far better than reading the tea leaves of allegedly objective grammar and FAR better than cramming the rules through a sausage grinder so you can repack them into the hamburger shape you want.
Offensive readied actions go after the event that triggered them.
Your rules lawyering places readied actions before the event thrat triggered them. This rules lawyering relied on arbitrary decisions that are not neccesarily true. There is no reason, at all, to believe that argument over the plainly stated desire to have offensive readied actions go after the triggering event. You can call it an action, you can call it an event, you can call it stuff, you can call it smurf. Won't change anything.
So your rules lawyering got the wrong answer. That happens a LOT when you push on the rules that hard.
I'm sorry that I am reading and understanding English as it's meant to be read and understood.
I am not misreading or misinterpreting anything, grammatically or otherwise though you have accused me of doing so.
I simply understand English and don't pretend to ascribe intent. If the developers wanted them to be the same, why didn't they word them the same?
Could it be, that the intent of the developers was that a Reaction and a readied action be 2 different things??
Well.. as evidenced by the fact that they have 2 different entries in the CRB.. I suppose that they did.
Again. Read the rules. Please. I am not rules lawyering anything. If anyone is rules lawyering it is people who are attempting to interpret intent by inference. I am not doing that. I am simply stating that as it stands:
Standard action cast time spells can be interrupted by a ready action.
(that's the RAW. IF you propose otherwise you need to provide evidence to the contrary.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The character readying the attack action does not have to know if the target going to cast a standard action spell or a full round action spell in order to ready the attack action.
The target of the ready attack action does not know what their potential attacker is readying for. They might not even be aware of their attacker.
And also, Magic missile can be cast as a full round action.
None of that helps at all. The fact is there is no reason to ready to interrupt someones one round spell.
Magic missile is a FULL round spell. Your move your swift your standard you're done. You can't interupt it with a ready action. They cast, you go after them, they shoot. It's too late.
Summon monster is a ONE ROUND spell. Its different. its your full swift and move action this round, and then you keep casting until your turn again next round.
Init count
18: Laser Eye Ellis
10: Bob the summoner
If laser eye tries to ready to shoot bob the summoner, then at init count 9.999999 he gets his one shot. If bob was casting magic missile, its too late. if Bob was casting summon monster, Laser Eye gave up his standard action on round 1 in order to nerf his own round 2 action to a standard action. Instead, he could just fire at init count 18 on round 1, and then fire at init count 18 on round 2, with the same chance of interrupting the spell as readying.
So one of those two statements is broken. Thats the contradiction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not rules lawyering anything.
You have created , out of whole cloth, the idea that there is a start and an end to actions that is not hinted or implied by the rules, at all.
You have argued that I ready to shoot someone that casts wouldn't work, but readying to shoot someone that STARTS casting would.
That is absolutely rules lawyering.
So BNW, you are saying that actions from 2 different entities can't happen simultaneously in Starfinder?
I can't perform my turn, and during that turn, no one else can act???
BTW...you didn't actually get that example quite right. Allow me to try
Init Count
18. Laser Eye Ellis.
10. Bob the summoner.
Ellis readies an action to shoot bob when he casts a spell.
New Init Count.
10. Laser Eye Ellis
10. Bob the Summoner.
Bob the summoner begins his turn and performs his move action (Ellis is still ready). Bob then begins to cast a spell as his standard action. The triggering event has occurred. Ellis shoots at Bob and hits him. The spell is interrupted.
OR.
Ellis readies an action to use a smoke bomb at his feet to obscure Bobs vision if he begins casting a spell.
New init count is again..
10. Laser Eye Ellis
10. Bob the summoner
Bob begins his turn and performs his move action. (Ellis is still ready and waiting). Bob begins casting a spell. Just before Bob begins, Ellis throws the smoke bomb at his feet. Bob can't see Ellis so Ellis is no longer a valid target. Bob finishes casting the spell and chooses a valid target.
Readying an action drops you in the initiative count. It doesn't drop you to the initiative count AFTER the player who triggers your readied action. Drops you to the CURRENT initiative count.
I am not rules lawyering anything.
You have created , out of whole cloth, the idea that there is a start and an end to actions that is not hinted or implied by the rules, at all.
You have argued that I ready to shoot someone that casts wouldn't work, but readying to shoot someone that STARTS casting would.
That is absolutely rules lawyering.
Ahh. I see. You misread my statement. I was simply expanding on the idea that actions are a series of events. Actions HAVE a start, a middle, and an ending. I didn't say that the 'start of an action' is a valid triggering event. Meaning that SPECIFIC wording. I meant that a turn is comprised of actions. Move, Standard, Swift, Reaction. And that each of those actions are in turn composed of smaller actions. Picking up your appendages and placing them in front of one another; aiming down the sights of a pistol, pulling back the hammer on a pistol and then pulling the trigger... etc. Those smaller actions constitute an action. Choosing one of those events of the action as a trigger is quite specific.
For example. When police confront an suspect they believe is armed, they ready an action based on what the suspect does. This doesn't mean the suspect gets to perform it's entire 6 second turn before the cops could react to the triggering event.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Readying an action drops you in the initiative count. It doesn't drop you to the initiative count AFTER the player who triggers your readied action. Drops you to the CURRENT initiative count.
Which if you took an offensive action is AFTER the the person goes. Which is why you functionally can't interrupt them.
Ahh. I see. You misread my statement.
I did not. Your explanation that you're not doing that things is you definitely doing that thing.
After the triggering event. Not after the player completes his turn.
Which means it happens simultaneously with the other player.
Again. Your claim is one of intent and not RAW. There's not point in continuing your point unless you have evidence in the RAW that excludes that player from performing his readied action until the other entity completes their action
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After the triggering event. Not after the player completes his turn.
Which means it happens simultaneously with the other player.
Again. Your claim is one of intent and not RAW. There's not point in continuing your point unless you have evidence in the RAW that excludes that player from performing his readied action until the other entity completes their action
Well.. I mean they already did quote the appropraite section of the rules you just seem to not agree with it.
"your readied action is purely defensive, such as choosing the total defense action if a foe you are facing shoots at you, it occurs just before the event that triggered it. If the readied action is not a purely defensive action, such as shooting a foe if he shoots at you, it takes place immediately after the triggering event. If you come to your next turn and have not yet performed your readied action, you don’t get to take the readied action (though you can ready the same action again)."
You ready an action to shoot Bob if he casts a spell (offensive action on Bobs part) shooting him (offensive action no your part) Offensive actions go after the action that triggered it. Bob casts a non full round spell, then you shoot. Seems pretty cut and dry. Now if you had readied a full defense action (a purely defensive aciton) your readied action goes before Bobs casting.
Not sure what there is to interpret or misunderstand here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again. Your claim is one of intent and not RAW.
This is objectively not true. The two are not mutually exclusive
When you follow the raw, as i have quoted, laid out, explained, and demonstrated without your interpretation that actions are divisible to the rules breaking actions down into component parts then the rules play out exactly as I've described. Per that one section of the rules you functionally cannot interupt a standard action spell.
If the readied action is not a purely defensive action, such as shooting a foe if he shoots at you, it takes place immediately after the triggering event.
you have shot someone after they cast a spell. The spell isn't interrupted.
Saying that isn't the raw is trying to make the argument that the raw can't contradict itself.
Additions/interpretations to the rules like the ones you're making are obviously not themselves raw, so I pointed out that they grossly violated intent.
After the triggering event. Not after the player completes his turn.
Which means it happens simultaneously with the other player.
Again. Your claim is one of intent and not RAW. There's not point in continuing your point unless you have evidence in the RAW that excludes that player from performing his readied action until the other entity completes their action
Well.. I mean they already did quote the appropraite section of the rules you just seem to not agree with it.
"your readied action is purely defensive, such as choosing the total defense action if a foe you are facing shoots at you, it occurs just before the event that triggered it. If the readied action is not a purely defensive action, such as shooting a foe if he shoots at you, it takes place immediately after the triggering event. If you come to your next turn and have not yet performed your readied action, you don’t get to take the readied action (though you can ready the same action again)."
You ready an action to shoot Bob if he casts a spell (offensive action on Bobs part) shooting him (offensive action no your part) Offensive actions go after the action that triggered it. Bob casts a non full round spell, then you shoot. Seems pretty cut and dry. Now if you had readied a full defense action (a purely defensive aciton) your readied action goes before Bobs casting.
Not sure what there is to interpret or misunderstand here.
An event and an action are not the same thing. Go look at the Reaction in the CRB. It specifically states that an offensive action occurs after the triggering action. A readied action occurs before or after the triggering event. An event is not an action. That's WHY this discussion is taking place. That is why the request for clarification.
An event and an action are not the same thing
How do you know that? Because they used synonyms? Writers do that sometimes.
Call it a smurf if you want to it doesn't change anything.
You ready an action to shoot Bob if he casts a spell (offensive action on Bobs part) shooting him (offensive action no your part) Offensive actions go after the action that triggered it. Bob casts a non full round spell, then you shoot. Seems pretty cut and dry. Now if you had readied a full defense action (a purely defensive aciton) your readied action goes before Bobs casting.
IF the trigger is 'casts a spell' then the readied action does indeed occur after the spell has been cast. No argument there. Casts a spell infers the spell has been cast. IE. His action is finished.
If the trigger is 'begins casting a spell' then it occurs before the action is finished.
It's all about the wording of the event itself.
An event and an action are not the same thingHow do you know that? Because they used synonyms? Writers do that sometimes.
Call it a smurf if you want to it doesn't change anything.
No... because.. English?
Action : the accomplishment of a thing usually over a period of time, in stages, or with the possibility of repetition. (Shooting a gun requires a set of actions occurring in a sequence.)
Event: a postulated outcome, condition, or eventuality. (The gun fires.)
They aren't the same thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't complain i'm not using the raw because I'm not using your definitions.
there is no difference between the event "he fires his gun at me" and the action of "firing the gun at me"
That you get clear violation of the intent when you try to parse it that way isn't evidence that I'm not using the raw it's evidence that the definitions you made up are not what's meant in the context of the rules.
Actually there is a WORLD of difference in those 2 things. The event is that moment in time once a person takes that first shot.
Firing a gun at you constitutes many ACTIONS and potentially many shots from the gun and could occur over a much longer period of time.
The event denotes a specific instance in time. (either during a sequence of actions or after or before etc.). An action occurs over a period of time.
Why do you think they chose the word event? Because in common English an event is a measurable moment in time upon which you can base your actions. IE.. the gun fires to begin a race. Every runner waits for that EVENT to occur before continuing the action of running the race.
Actually there is a WORLD of difference in those 2 things. The event is that moment in time once a person takes that first shot.
Citation required.
Miriam Webster:
Event:
the fundamental entity of observed physical reality represented by a point designated by three coordinates of place and one of time in the space-time continuum postulated by the theory of relativity
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That isn't remotely what you said, that isn't the definition that you used, and it doesn't lead to the results you're trying to get.
Both event and action are "something that occurs" . You can't read any more into it with any degree of certainty, and the level of certainty you need here is to completely override the stipulation that your offensive ready goes AFTER the triggering action, or event, or smurf, or whatever you want to call it.
You cannot claim that you're not rules lawyering and then do...*looks at the entire page* this.
That is exactly what I am getting at. The triggering event is that single coordinate in time.
When you FIRE a gun. The very INSTANT the bullet leaves the barrel of the gun is the EVENT of a 'gun is fired'.
Firing a gun is a series of actions.
Begins casting a spell is the very MOMENT in time when a player begins the casting action. Not once the entirety of the action completes.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I have two players in a game, one if them says "I ready an action to attack him if he casts a spell" and the other says "I ready an action to attack him if he starts to cast a spell," then in-universe, both of the characters are trying to do exactly the same thing.
Giving them different results because one player phrased their trigger more carefully would be ridiculous.
That is exactly what I am getting at. The triggering event is that single coordinate in time.
When you FIRE a gun. The very INSTANT the bullet leaves the barrel of the gun is the EVENT of a 'gun is fired'.
You have no evidence that the game means those synonyms precisely that way. Especially when the dictionary isn't using them like that.
On the other hand, we have near certainty that the game does NOT mean those words that way, otherwise there would be absolutely no need to place an offensive readied action after the triggering event, or to even distinguish between an offensive and defensive readied action. They would both go before the event. You keep ignoring that enormous glaring problem while trying to induce fission splitting hairs.
If I have two players in a game, one if them says "I ready an action to attack him if he casts a spell" and the other says "I ready an action to attack him if he starts to cast a spell," then in-universe, both of the characters are trying to do exactly the same thing.
Giving them different results because one player phrased their trigger more carefully would be ridiculous.
Unfortunately only if you think that 'casts' a spell (inferring that the entirety of the casting is complete and the effect of the spell has happened) is the same as begins casting (starts the casting action).
Wording DOES matter. That's why the readied action works the way it does. You require a SPECIFIC triggering event. If your player fails to word the triggering event specifically then it's up to the GM to adjudicate the ruling on that wording.
You have no evidence that the game means those synonyms precisely that way. Especially when the dictionary isn't using them like that.
Those aren't synonyms. They are nouns. Event is a noun. Action is a noun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have no evidence that the game means those synonyms precisely that way. Especially when the dictionary isn't using them like that.Those aren't synonyms. They are nouns. Event is a noun. Action is a noun.
Thats not how words work.....Synonym and noun aren't mutually exclusive. Cat and Kitty are synonyms. They are also both nouns, both felines, etc.
Indeed, but you are claiming that event is a synonym of action? Or vice versa?
Also.. synonym doesn't mean the words are the same either. A Cat and a Kitty may be synonyms but they are also different words. A cat is a full grown feline and a kitty is a juvenile feline. They can be used as s synonym but they are still different words with different meanings.