It seems obvious based on Owen's post that readied actions are not intended to disrupt spellcasting, except for counterspelling. Whether the actual RAW written support that, RAI seems obvious.
(see Owen's original post)
Owens post was a reply to Attacks of Opportunity. Which is a Reaction. His post was not specifically in response to readied actions and any reference was ancillary to his point about Attacks of Opportunity.
I quoted and linked his post in a previous response,
I was referring specifically to this rule:
"If 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)."
I don't understand how creating that rule could be a change intended to allow spell interruption, when just using the same system as PF, where all readied actions go before would do the trick.
Are you associating an event with an action? This could be the confusion. If you subscribe that the developers meant action instead of event, then yes, the spell would complete. If you subscribe to the idea that event means an occurrence such as 'begins to cast' then the readied action can interrupt a spell as it's being cast and has a casting time of a standard action.
If it were not meant this way, why bother referencing it in the spell casting section as a way for a spell to be interrupted. In that section it specifically calls out 3 ways in which a player is most likely to take damage while casting a spell and have it interrupted.
a). casting when a spell’s casting time is 1 round or longer.
b). you have provoked an attack of opportunity.
c). a foe readied an action to attack you when you began to cast.
Those are 3 distinct ways you can take damage while casting a spell. If it were the developers intent that spells with a casting time of a standard action not be interruptable, why bother with (c) when (a) covers every other spell.
The reason that the rule for PF would not work in Starfinder is that if you allow the readied action to go before the spell cast, there would be no spell to interrupt. It wouldn't have been cast or begun to cast, so you would potentially do damage to the player or foe but that damage wouldn't interrupt anything. There wouldn't be anything to interrupt.
Anyways, that's only my opinion when I have taken everything together in totality. It's what I have penciled together from reading almost all of the literature. Yet, an opinion is like a bellybutton, everyone has one. I may be correct. I may be completely wrong. Either way my intent is to gain clarification from the developers and hold meaningful discussion to learn other points of view.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This was a tangent speculating about intent.
If the rule on page 249 matters to the tactic in question, I can see how the rule came into being. Without it, spellcasters don't work very well in this world. The tactic of readying to shoot a spellcaster at range was definitely a common one in Pathfinder, and there are a number of reasons to expect it to become more common in Starfinder.
The question I was asking is, if you can subdivide actions into events, like starting to cast, what do you believe the purpose of the rule on page 249 was?
A rule was added, separating when purely readied defensive actions occur from when other readied actions occur. This rule change had some purpose. What do you believe that the rule was intended to do, that it can do with your definition of subdividing actions into events, to a level where nothing has happened mechanically, when the event occurs?
This was a tangent speculating about intent.
If the rule on page 249 matters to the tactic in question, I can see how the rule came into being. Without it, spellcasters don't work very well in this world. The tactic of readying to shoot a spellcaster at range was definitely a common one in Pathfinder, and there are a number of reasons to expect it to become more common in Starfinder.
The question I was asking is, if you can subdivide actions into events, like starting to cast, what do you believe the purpose of the rule on page 249 was?
A rule was added, separating when purely readied defensive actions occur from when other readied actions occur. This rule change had some purpose. What do you believe that the rule was intended to do, that it can do with your definition of subdividing actions into events, to a level where nothing has happened mechanically, when the event occurs?
Because it fits thematically and helps decide when a readied action occurs. The idea behind a defensive action is that the defensive action would cause the player to avoid the upcoming attack or lessen the damage received by some enemy action. For that to work thematically, that action needs to occur the moment before the damaging action occurs. So if you take the move action to dive behind some cover or break line of effect to an enemy when that enemy 'aims his gun at me', then you are effectively negating or reducing that enemies damage to you. The enemy can choose another valid target, but you are no longer a valid target. The idea is that you are doing something to protect yourself the instant before you are harmed. This is mirrored by real life experiences in which, you prepare for incoming pain and damage.
Note, in readied actions it NEVER says offensive action. It is quite interesting to read. Either the action is a purely defensive action ... or.. it's not. Meaning, if the action has ANY way in which it can be considered as anything other than a purely defensive action, it will go after the triggering event. We have basically dumbed that down to an offensive action but the readied action never specifies that. It may be intentional.
Offensive actions are meant to respond to something in a way meant to bring harm or to hamper the enemy. I shoot him if he shoots me. I push him off a ledge if he gets close enough to the ledge. These are actions meant to interact with the opponent with a very specific timing. When he shoots, you shoot. When he casts, you shoot hoping to stop the casting. When he attempts a Bull rush you attempt a trip maneuver. When the enemy turns his back to flee, you cast a spell that creates rough terrain. All of these interactions have something in common and that is that you harming or hampering an opponent. You and the opponent are interacting in some way which hampers or harms the foe.
If you don't allow a defensive action to happen the moment before the triggering event, then you won't have the AC bonus from cover/Line of effect/whatever bonus you were aiming for WHEN the triggering event occurs. This way, when the triggering event occurs, your purely defensive action is ready to receive whatever was being done to you.
Spellcasters would be severely weakened if you could ready an action to make a ranged attack to interrupt them when they cast spells with casting time 1full action or less.
Compared to Pathfinder 1, you got to take concentrate checks if you took damage to see if you still managed to hold onto the spell. In Starfinder, if your opponent deals 1 damage to you when you are casting, you lose the spell. Casters would be the target of ready ranged every round if you could interrupt spells, regardless of casting time.
Starfinder has a lot of guns and ranged combat is a big deal.
If you could interrupt casters casting Spells with readied ranged (full action or less) you weeken them in a while world full of ranged attacks.
I’m confident that it was the intent that you could not interrupt casters with readied ranged.
As I stated earlier, I think this is a side effect of an overall, weak implementation of spell casting. The impact is enhanced because spell casting is already in a rough place. If spell casting were in a stronger place, this wouldn't have the same impact.
I think the designers can lessen this impact in a variety of ways without crippling readied actions to the point of uselessness and without changing the wording of the CRB. I have a lot of ideas along this line.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This was a tangent speculating about intent.
If one rule says one thing and another rule contradicts it sorting it out via intent isn't a tangent it's the next level of rules resolution.
"The rules" is not limited to "the raw". Intent, reason, sense, evidence
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for Casters no longer being able to take concentration checks makes them weaker, but their spells (full action or less) not being interrupted by readied actions makes up for that. This is a protection for casters, so they do not get disrupted by ready...
This is really important in terms of RAI. Dispel magic is capable of counterspelling. There are rules for countering and negating, such as slow vs. haste.
If you can interrupt spellcasting with an offensive action, those rules become completely useless. You know why? Magic missile. Auto hits, does damage, spell negated, the perfect counterspell at level 1!
Between Owen's post, and the RAW, it is extremely obvious to me that RAI is that spells cast at full action or less are not interrupted by readied actions.
The only way to interpret RAW that they do, despite RAI, is to define triggers that don't exist in the combat rules. (ex: aiming as part of the attack action, begins to cast a spell, blinks, heart makes a beat, twitches a muscle etc.)
Remember:
A reaction is a special action you can take even if it’s not your turn, but only after a defined and concrete trigger.
aiming as part of the attack action, begins to cast a spell, blinks, heart makes a beat, twitches a muscle etc. are not defined and concrete. If a player stated such as their trigger, I would ask for clarification.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have suspected since I got my hands on the CRB, and do still suspect, that the "arcane reason" for that rule change was to make casters playable in a world where everyone has a ranged attack, and single attacks have very high accuracy. I think that all of the other things that you can't do with a readied action in Starfinder are collateral damage of a rule made to prevent frequent spell interruption.
This right here is the entire point of why the system works the way it does.
have we discussed this paragraph?
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.
~Core, pg 331
personally, if I was concerned about spellcasters always being targeted by readied actions, I'd simply have 1 standard action (or less) spells not be candidates for spell failure from damage, or tap dance my way to victory as I have an opponent(s) tied up for an entire encounter as that's all they're going to be doing, allowing the rest of my team to gank them without response.
EDIT: did not see the post right above this one...HA!
|
I find it reassuring that the first rules discussion in SF that rakes up this many posts is about something as trivial and as easily adjusted by the GM as this. It shows that a lot of changes to the rules from PF were implemented correctly.
The only time this should be relevant is in a life or death situation for a PC playing SFS, and even then it's a quick call by the GM. So let's just all press that FAQ button, leave the discussions up to the people you're paying to do so and keep the forums focused on what matters more: immersion and feedback.
|
I find it reassuring that the first rules discussion in SF that rakes up this many posts is about something as trivial and as easily adjusted by the GM as this. It shows that a lot of changes to the rules from PF were implemented correctly.
The only time this should be relevant is in a life or death situation for a PC playing SFS, and even then it's a quick call by the GM. So let's just all press that FAQ button, leave the discussions up to the people you're paying to do so and keep the forums focused on what matters more: immersion and feedback.
I don't think it's trivial. Methods to reliably hit spellcasters are quite available (EAC weapons, especially in the hands of NPCs who all have high to-hit; magic missile; grenades).
Also, with no concentration checks, getting damaged is really the end of your spell.
Understanding exactly what you can and cannot do to interrupt a spellcaster is key to good tactics for players and GM.
My understanding is as follows:
* Readied actions to attack are not purely defensive actions, and thus resolve after the triggering event. (p. 249) So you can't interrupt most spells this way. That's intentional; there's a lot of accurate ways to hit a spellcaster, if ready actions to interrupt were easy spellcasting would become too fragile. This design though was something they were fiddling with right up until it was time for a final text to send to the printer and there's some inconsistencies and bad examples still in there. It's a first printing of a new game, that's to be expected. We need to do a bit more RAI-guessing than in more established games.
* Attacks of Opportunity do interrupt spellcasting. It's one of the only three things in Starfinder that provoke for a reason. (p. 246)
* You can only break someone's concentration by making them fail a save or hitting them with a to-hit roll. (p. 331) Plain damage isn't enough. A grenade exploding nearby or a magic missile does not interrupt concentration. And both of those would only be possible against a 1-Round+++ casting anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A grenade might work if they fail the save would t it?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it reassuring that the first rules discussion in SF that rakes up this many posts is about something as trivial and as easily adjusted by the GM as this. It shows that a lot of changes to the rules from PF were implemented correctly.
The only time this should be relevant is in a life or death situation for a PC playing SFS, and even then it's a quick call by the GM. So let's just all press that FAQ button, leave the discussions up to the people you're paying to do so and keep the forums focused on what matters more: immersion and feedback.
I don't think it's trivial. Methods to reliably hit spellcasters are quite available (EAC weapons, especially in the hands of NPCs who all have high to-hit; magic missile; grenades).
Also, with no concentration checks, getting damaged is really the end of your spell.
Understanding exactly what you can and cannot do to interrupt a spellcaster is key to good tactics for players and GM.
My understanding is as follows:
* Readied actions to attack are not purely defensive actions, and thus resolve after the triggering event. (p. 249) So you can't interrupt most spells this way. That's intentional; there's a lot of accurate ways to hit a spellcaster, if ready actions to interrupt were easy spellcasting would become too fragile. This design though was something they were fiddling with right up until it was time for a final text to send to the printer and there's some inconsistencies and bad examples still in there. It's a first printing of a new game, that's to be expected. We need to do a bit more RAI-guessing than in more established games.
* Attacks of Opportunity do interrupt spellcasting. It's one of the only three things in Starfinder that provoke for a reason. (p. 246)
* You can only break someone's concentration by making them fail a save or hitting them with a to-hit roll. (p. 331) Plain damage isn't enough. A grenade exploding nearby or a magic missile does not interrupt concentration. And both of...
The reason I say it's trivial is because I have fine GMs like yourself whom I trust to rule like you yourself did in your post in order to keep a balanced game. And this thread is not about finding a good GM.
That said, Nimor Starseeker has a point. I also learned a bit about the rules while reading this thread!
Did they conclude never ready an offensive action?
A grenade might work if they fail the save would t it?
If you take damage from an effect you fail a save against, while you are casting a spell, you lose concentration and the spell fails.
The question is timing. People can't normally lob a grenade at you as an attack of opportunity.
If the spell has a long casting time (1 round or more), you are much more vulnerable.
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.
Looks like I'm a little late to the discussion, and I'm still making my way through the thread, but from what I've read so far, I agree with Maygar.
A trigger does not need to be an action. It can be literally any sort of stimulus or observable event whatsoever.
I'm not forced to say "I shoot him when he takes that talking action." It is totally rules legal for me to say "I shoot him when he says a specific word."
"Say 'what' again!"
Looks like I'm a little late to the discussion, and I'm still making my way through the thread, but from what I've read so far, I agree with Maygar.
A trigger does not need to be an action. It can be literally any sort of stimulus or observable event whatsoever.
I'm not forced to say "I shoot him when he takes that talking action." It is totally rules legal for me to say "I shoot him when he says a specific word."
"Say 'what' again!"
As you get further in, you'll realize this interpretation makes magic missile the perfect counterspell.
The trigger might not be a specific action, but the readied offensive action must still happen after the action the trigger was part of. (with specific exceptions, like leaving a square).
I don't see any problem with interrupting free action talking, but technically it happens after the free action is over. Good time as a GM to just let it slide to keep the table moving.
As you get further in, you'll realize this interpretation makes magic missile the perfect counterspell.
Magic Missile can't disrupt spellcasting.
"Normally, you can concentrate even in a distracting situation, but if you’re 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."
200 posts on readied actions just proves that ready actions are just bugged in Starfinder.
I quite love the fact that you can't aim at someone and tell him to drop his weapon or you shoot, and actually shoot before he manages to finish any action. I mean, it's basic logic, you are aiming, you just need to press the trigger, but the guy can freely aim and shoot at you before you're able to press this trigger. Or just move behind a wall so you can't shoot at him. Or teleport away, or close the door, whatever.Eye-hand coordination reaction time for a normal human is around 200-300ms. For an experienced adventurer in a tense situation, it should be under 200ms. There is absolutely nothing you can do in such a short notice. Starfinder ready action are just illogical, and should be rewritten.
Pathfinder ready actions were quite fine by the way...
As long as readied actions don't somehow invalidate initiative, I totally agree.
I was referring specifically to this rule:
"If 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)."
So what happens when a readied action is neither offensive or defensive in nature? For example, I turn off the light switch when they enter the room.
As you get further in, you'll realize this interpretation makes magic missile the perfect counterspell.Magic Missile can't disrupt spellcasting.
"Normally, you can concentrate even in a distracting situation, but if you’re 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."
SuperBidi seems to have the right of it. In any event, I'm only addressing "what constitutes a valid triggering condition" at this time.
As you get further in, you'll realize this interpretation makes magic missile the perfect counterspell.Magic Missile can't disrupt spellcasting.
"Normally, you can concentrate even in a distracting situation, but if you’re 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."
Neat, I didn't realize that.
Still, the whole reason this debate popped up is that concentration was thrown in the bin. To keep casters relevant, they tried to make it so readied actions can't disrupt spellcasting of a full action or less.
This had the knock-on effect of readied actions not disrupting most anything.
SuperBidi seems to have the right of it. In any event, I'm only addressing "what constitutes a valid triggering condition" at this time.
Sure, but when determining if the readied action happens first or second, you have to figure out what action the trigger was a part of.
SuperBidi seems to have the right of it. In any event, I'm only addressing "what constitutes a valid triggering condition" at this time.Sure, but when determining if the readied action happens first or second, you have to figure out what action the trigger was a part of.
It seems unclear to me whether the before and after bit should even be a rule. I don't see much point in debating it until a FAQ or errata can clear up the apparant contradictions in the rules first.
It seems unclear to me whether the before and after bit should even be a rule. I don't see much point in debating it until a FAQ or errata can clear up the apparant contradictions in the rules first.SuperBidi seems to have the right of it. In any event, I'm only addressing "what constitutes a valid triggering condition" at this time.Sure, but when determining if the readied action happens first or second, you have to figure out what action the trigger was a part of.
Where I don't see a contradiction. A trigger must be something that happens in the combat rules, not the description of what's happening in combat.
If it's offensive it happens after, if defensive before.
Either way... I'm going to hop off this treadmill for a while.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like I'm a little late to the discussion, and I'm still making my way through the thread, but from what I've read so far, I agree with Maygar.
A trigger does not need to be an action. It can be literally any sort of stimulus or observable event whatsoever.
I'm not forced to say "I shoot him when he takes that talking action." It is totally rules legal for me to say "I shoot him when he says a specific word."
"Say 'what' again!"
First, reactions resolve directly after the triggering action. So if you cast a spell and someone readied to shoot you if you cast, if the spell has a casting time of 1 standard action you get the spell off before the AoO gets made.-Linky
What you're arguing is that you can evade that bit of rules with clever wordplay and clever rules interpretation that has zero evidence in the rules. Just because your interpretation hasn't been specifically denounced doesn't make it right, valid, or evidenced.
There is no, zero, nada, absolutely no reason for the rule of how readied offensive actions work to work they way they do if you can make them act like defensive readied actions with a mere change of phrasing. It's like saying you can shoot all the endangered animals you want as long as you say "booya" first.
The issue isn't whether you can ready if he says what or not. You absolutely can. What you need to be true is that the action of spellcasting is divisible and that is absolutely not evidenced.
I'm assuming there is still no official clarification?
I don't really want to debate the merits of allowing readied actions to interrupt spells despite the "offensive actions happen after rule", I just want to know if we have a conclusion.
I'm assuming there is still no official clarification?
I don't really want to debate the merits of allowing readied actions to interrupt spells despite the "offensive actions happen after rule", I just want to know if we have a conclusion.
click the link? If it's true for spells, it's true for other actions.
No offense, but a post by the developer that isn't flagged as an FAQ post seems more like the developer stating their opinion.
However, I do see it as intention. Still, the references to interrupting spell casting need to be revised and eliminated if that is there intention. So to me the question remains.
Also, I missed that link when I posted due to the formatting, but that's on me.
Looks like I'm a little late to the discussion, and I'm still making my way through the thread, but from what I've read so far, I agree with Maygar.
A trigger does not need to be an action. It can be literally any sort of stimulus or observable event whatsoever.
I'm not forced to say "I shoot him when he takes that talking action." It is totally rules legal for me to say "I shoot him when he says a specific word."
"Say 'what' again!"
First, reactions resolve directly after the triggering action. So if you cast a spell and someone readied to shoot you if you cast, if the spell has a casting time of 1 standard action you get the spell off before the AoO gets made.-Linky
What you're arguing is that you can evade that bit of rules with clever wordplay and clever rules interpretation that has zero evidence in the rules. Just because your interpretation hasn't been specifically denounced doesn't make it right, valid, or evidenced.
There is no, zero, nada, absolutely no reason for the rule of how readied offensive actions work to work they way they do if you can make them act like defensive readied actions with a mere change of phrasing. It's like saying you can shoot all the endangered animals you want as long as you say "booya" first.
The issue isn't whether you can ready if he says what or not. You absolutely can. What you need to be true is that the action of spellcasting is divisible and that is absolutely not evidenced.
Yes, intelligent phrasing might allow someone to bypass a rule that was arguably placed in the game by mistake in the first place. We won't really know until proper clarification is released.
I'm not sure I really buy into your interpretation, as it invalidates another rule about losing spells (which, admittedly, may be the one that was put in by mistake). It also leads to other weird situations.
For example, I ready an action to shoot the bad guy when he casts a spell. Bad guy begins casting a spell with a 10 minute casting time. Since the trigger takes effect after the event that triggered it, I'm either stuck waiting for 10 minutes or I take my normal turn on my next initiative count, effectively having skipped my turn EVEN THOUGH THE TRIGGERING EVENT OCCURED!
I doubt either one of those scenarios was intended.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, intelligent phrasing might allow someone to bypass a rule that was arguably placed in the game by mistake in the first place. We won't really know until proper clarification is released.
In the meantime we have to settle for the best conclusion we can reach and not pretend that our options are either epistemic nihlism or absolute assurance. What you're saying completely invalidates the readied action system and goes against how the developers have stated to resolve the contradiction. No, that's not a published FAQ but it's not nothing either.
I'm not sure I really buy into your interpretation, as it invalidates another rule about losing spells (which, admittedly, may be the one that was put in by mistake). It also leads to other weird situations.
And yours completely invalidates the entire distinction between offensive and defensive readied actions. You can say that your trigger is when someone starts to X rather than when someone Xes. You think that's fixing the rules, that's called a house rule.
For example, I ready an action to shoot the bad guy when he casts a spell. Bad guy begins casting a spell with a 10 minute casting time. Since the trigger takes effect after the event that triggered it
Nope.
Magic missile: You ready to shoot. he starts to cast. you shoot. Your shot can't interrupt anything it's already happened
Magic circle of evil demony summoning: you ready to sthoot. He starts to cast. You shoot. Shot hits an ongoing spell. POOF.
In the meantime we have to settle for the best conclusion we can reach and not pretend that our options are either epistemic nihlism or absolute assurance. What you're saying completely invalidates the readied action system and goes against how the developers have stated to resolve the contradiction. No, that's not a published FAQ but it's not nothing either.
Seems to me there is no one right answer, as there isn't enough information available. That's the problem with contradictions in rules; wither way you go, you're invalidating one side of the contradicting rule.
We need this to be officially cleared up.
Would you mind linking to the develoepr statements? I've only seen them in regards to AoO's, not readied actions.
And yours completely invalidates the entire distinction between offensive and defensive readied actions. You can say that your trigger is when someone starts to X rather than when someone Xes. You think that's fixing the rules, that's called a house rule.
Seeing as we don't know the intent, it's no more a house rule than your interpretation.
Nope.
Magic missile: You ready to shoot. he starts to cast. you shoot. Your shot can't interrupt anything it's already happened
Magic circle of evil demony summoning: you ready to sthoot. He starts to cast. You shoot. Shot hits an ongoing spell. POOF.
Can you back that up with a rules quote please? I keep seeing you stating that the readied action happens after the event. Please show me the rule that says an offensive action can happen during an event. By your own interpretation, there doesn't seem to be one.
And if there is one, would that not support my interpretation as being possible?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems to me there is no one right answer, as there isn't enough information available.
Again with the either or fallacy. Either we have the 100% pure unadulterated clearly spelled out raw or there's no difference between the options.
When you keep doing that it's evading a rules discussion, not having one. Demanding absolute proof for my position while demanding absolute disproof of your own is bad argumentation and worse posting. If thats what you need to do to have a point for your position, reconsider your position.
That's the problem with contradictions in rules; wither way you go, you're invalidating one side of the contradicting rule.
If you wanted to read them together you could read the interrupting spell-casting line as a more specific exception to other readied actions. that would eliminate the contradiction without tossing out the rule entirely with inane mother may I rules lawyering.
We need this to be officially cleared up.
You know full well paizo doesn't do faqs until a reprint.
Would you mind linking to the develoepr statements? I've only seen them in regards to AoO's, not readied actions.
Again. First, reactions resolve directly after the triggering action. So if you cast a spell and someone readied to shoot you if you cast, if the spell has a casting time of 1 standard action you get the spell off before the AoO gets made Linky
or are you complaining they said AoO when talking about a readied action?
Seeing as we don't know the intent, it's no more a house rule than your interpretation.
Horsefeathers. You know the intent of a rule that flat out says you go after someone if you try to shoot them in the face is to have you go after them if you try to shoot them in the face. What you're arguing here (without any evidence at all) is that "intelligent" use of the rules allows you to evade that.
Can you back that up with a rules quote please? I keep seeing you stating that the readied action happens after the event. Please show me the rule that says an offensive action can happen during an event. By your own interpretation, there doesn't seem to be one.
It can't happen during an event that is one action.
1) see the developer post i linked
2) It drops out of the rules. Your action is resolved after theirs in turn order. The reason you can't hit a one action spell while it's being cast with a readied action is you're always going after they are (when it's too late)