| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought we were specifically discussing magic missile with it's optional full action casting time. Which is distinct from a 1 round casting time.
Technically the thread is on interruptions with readied actions, so this entire tangent is technically off-topic. Though probably more productive.
I thought we were specifically discussing magic missile with it's optional full action casting time. Which is distinct from a 1 round casting time.Technically the thread is on interruptions with readied actions, so this entire tangent is technically off-topic. Though probably more productive.
Thanks Samantha, I appreciate you bringing things back around. One of the reasons this topic is important is that it drives an entire element of the Tactical Combat system. This discussion carries over to other readied actions as the central argument is the timing of when the readied action occurs. If the readied action occurs after the triggering action, then offensive readied actions become almost entirely pointless. If the readied action occurs after the triggering event resolves, and the remainder of the action resolves, then it offers a variety of interesting and creative offensive readied actions.
To Garrett: why did the players have to skip their round 2 actions? The readied action occurred before the start of their next turn so it wasn't part of their current turns actions. Wouldn't they act immediately after the SE because their new initiative count would become 25 during the SE turn and following the completion of the SE wouldn't they be able to take their turn?
To Garrett: why did the players have to skip their round 2 actions? The readied action occurred before the start of their next turn so it wasn't part of their current turns actions. Wouldn't they act immediately after the SE because their new initiative count would become 25 during the SE turn and following the completion of the SE wouldn't they be able to take their turn?
Because it is their round 2 turn when their readied action happens, and they just took an action.
In that situation, if player 1 had readied until player 2 acted, would they get a second turn of actions in round 1? If not, they don't get a second turn of actions in round 2. Readying and delaying are very similar in principle. Both are dangerously close to not taking your turn.
My only real question is if you get the rest of your actions after a readied action is triggered-assuming you didn't use them already. I don't believe so, but I'm unsure.
My only real question is if you get the rest of your actions after a readied action is triggered-assuming you didn't use them already. I don't believe so, but I'm unsure.
A readied action is a standard action and you only get a standard action. So thats definitely a no.
Readied action in starfinder are reaaaaly niche. They are very costly and provide little benefit.
A 1 round (square) action being a full round action does not mean that a full round action (rectangle) is a one round action.
It's not their round 2 turn when their readied action triggers. It's the SEs round 2 turn.
It depends on the initiative order of player 1 and 2. If player 1 goes before player 2, he may perform a readied action as a standard action and he may complete the remainder of his turn with a move action and swift action. His turn is complete. Once player 2 triggers the readied action of player 1, players readied action resolves. Player 1 lowers his adjusts his order in the initiative count. Player 2 then completes his turn. Player 1 and player 2 have both had a turn in that round.
In the first example, none of the players received a turn in round 2. A readied action triggering during that round would not prohibit them from having a turn in that round.
You do not take the rest of your actions after a readied action is triggered. Readying an action is a standard action. On your turn you may ready an action (standard action), perform a move action, and perform a swift action.
By readying an action you may act on another players turn if the triggered condition is met. Normally you can't act on another players turn. A readied action allows this to happen but comes with a potentially steep cost. If the trigger never occurs before your next turn, you lose the readied action.
In our example. Each player had a round 1 turn. They all readied an action (standard action), performed a move action,and performed a swift action (winked at the SE). Although the readied action occurred in round 2 it still occurred before the players next turn. So it would resolve and the players could take their round 2 normally.
Does that make sense?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 round takes a full action on your turn. You must continue to concentrate until the start of your next turn or the spell is disrupted.
Basically...
A 1 round casting time takes a full action and concentration until the start of your next turn.
A full action casting time takes a full action. The spell comes into effect immediately. You do not need to concentrate until your next turn, and therefore can't be disrupted by a readied action attack.
My only real question is if you get the rest of your actions after a readied action is triggered-assuming you didn't use them already. I don't believe so, but I'm unsure.
A readied action is a standard action and you only get a standard action. So thats definitely a no.
Readied action in starfinder are reaaaaly niche. They are very costly and provide little benefit.
If you subscribe to BNW's interpretation of when a readied action triggers then yes. Readied actions are almost entirely useless. If you subscribe to the RAW, then they open a host of dynamic and interesting options.
You can bull rush someone when they come close to a ledge. You can entangle someone with a whip if they attempt to fly away. You can throw a smoke bomb (while yelling smoke bomb) if a foe targets you with lasers, you can moon someone right before they blast your starship. Only your imagination limits the creative use of this action.
In the first example, none of the players received a turn in round 2. A readied action triggering during that round would not prohibit them from having a turn in that round.
You do not take the rest of your actions after a readied action is triggered. Readying an action is a standard action. On your turn you may ready an action (standard action), perform a move action, and perform a swift action.
By readying an action you may act on another players turn if the triggered condition is met. Normally you can't act on another players turn. A readied action allows this to happen but comes with a potentially steep cost. If the trigger never occurs before your next turn, you lose the readied action.
In our example. Each player had a round 1 turn. They all readied an action (standard action), performed a move action,and performed a swift action (winked at...
Their readied action happened before their original initiative order in round 2. Their initiative didn't move up, it moved down so far it goes into round 2. Which moved their round 2 initiative down so far it goes into round 3, etc. That's what I'm reading as happening here.
Their readied action happened before their original initiative order in round 2. Their initiative didn't move up, it moved down so far it goes into round 2. Which moved their round 2 initiative down so far it goes into round 3, etc. That's what I'm reading as happening here.
In the first example, none of the players received a turn in round 2. A readied action triggering during that round would not prohibit them from having a turn in that round.
You do not take the rest of your actions after a readied action is triggered. Readying an action is a standard action. On your turn you may ready an action (standard action), perform a move action, and perform a swift action.
By readying an action you may act on another players turn if the triggered condition is met. Normally you can't act on another players turn. A readied action allows this to happen but comes with a potentially steep cost. If the trigger never occurs before your next turn, you lose the readied action.
In our example. Each player had a round 1 turn. They all readied an action (standard action), performed a move action,and performed a swift action (winked at...
Ah. I see. I understand. Let me see if I can explain the initiative count and it's workings in Starfinder.
Imagine each round is a stopwatchk with a countdown to 0. And when you roll initiative you get slotted into that timer. The top number is the highest initiative. So in our example, 25, would be the top of the stop watch. So round one begins. You click the timer. At 25, the SE goes. Etc.... Round 2 comes along. Reset the stopwatch. At initiative count 25, all the triggers from the readied actions occur and All the player move to the current initiative count. Count 25. They actually move up the initiative count. After the SE completes his round 2 turn, the characters may now take their turn.
In readied action the text reads that when the triggering event occurs you are moved to the current initiative count. In this manner you can move up or down the initiative count of a round. It doesn't let you take another complete turn in the same turn that you readied the action. If you move down in the initiative count after your turn has occurred then your turn for that round has already occurred.
Once a new round begins the initiative count starts from the top.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you subscribe to BNW's interpretation of when a readied action triggers then yes. Readied actions are almost entirely useless. If you subscribe to the RAW, then they open a host of dynamic and interesting options.
If you're wondering why you're getting the full on growly responses? This dross right here is why.
Your interpretation is not raw. Your interpretation is not more raw than mine. Its just different. I am more than willing to admit when I am telling the raw it's cranked the persnicket meter beyond useless , but that isn't whats happening here. Presenting your view as THE raw is completely unfounded at this point.
Not if you ascribe to the interpretation that event and Action are interchangeable in this context. A purely defensive readied action happens immediately before the triggering event. There would be nothing to dispel as the action which casts the spell hasn't occurred yet. You are acting before the action which casts the spell.
Starting to see the problem with this interpretation yet? Readied actions are ridiculously useless if you subscribe to this interpretation.
Do you think it was the intent of the devs to make readied actions this useless? I don't. That's why I am championing the rules as written and that the terms event and Action are not interchangeable in the context of the CRB.
If you subscribe to BNW's interpretation of when a readied action triggers then yes. Readied actions are almost entirely useless. If you subscribe to the RAW, then they open a host of dynamic and interesting options.
If you're wondering why you're getting the full on growly responses? This dross right here is why.
Your interpretation is not raw. Your interpretation is not more raw than mine. Its just different. I am more than willing to admit when I am telling the raw it's cranked the persnicket meter beyond useless , but that isn't whats happening here. Presenting your view as THE raw is completely unfounded at this point.
Raw state that the readied action occurs immediately after the triggering event. Not the triggering action. Do you disagree with that statement BNW?
If you subscribe to BNW's interpretation of when a readied action triggers then yes. Readied actions are almost entirely useless. If you subscribe to the RAW, then they open a host of dynamic and interesting options.
If you're wondering why you're getting the full on growly responses? This dross right here is why.
Your interpretation is not raw. Your interpretation is not more raw than mine. Its just different. I am more than willing to admit when I am telling the raw it's cranked the persnicket meter beyond useless , but that isn't whats happening here. Presenting your view as THE raw is completely unfounded at this point.
You may want to a address my claims instead of continuing to display the quality of your character by insulting me in cleverly circumscribed ways. Ive been quite amicable and havnet called you evil or dross. Keep on attacking my character eithout knowing me at all. All it does is demonstrate the quality of your character, which weakens any point you've made.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Raw state that the readied action occurs immediately after the triggering event. Not the triggering action. Do you disagree with that statement BNW?
I disagree that there is any difference between the two besides the name.
I disagree that there is any difference between the two besides the name.
Raw state that the readied action occurs immediately after the triggering event. Not the triggering action. Do you disagree with that statement BNW?
You disagree that there is any difference in what the term 'action' and 'event' mean in the context of the Starfinder game?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You disagree that there is any difference in what the term 'action' and 'event' mean in the context of the Starfinder game?
Event is not a game term. Unless you want to ready a laser beam for gencon?
You also can't separate out half of a compound term and expect it to keep its meaning. A tiger shark is not a cat. A [triggering action] may not have to be a specific [game definition of action].
You may want to a address my claims instead of continuing to display the quality of your character by insulting me in cleverly circumscribed ways
I have addressed your claims insofar as completely baseless claims can be addressed. Every argument is (at most) a mere 2 steps away from an appeal to your own authority and claims that border from the ridiculous (it's a noun not a synonym) to the impossible (i am not interpreting the rules)
If you can't tell the difference between me pointing out how silly those claims are and yourself it's because you've based your claims entirely on yourself. Not the rules, not sense, not reason, not evidence. You know what the rules say because you know what the rules say. Anything that disagrees with that is obviously not the rules because it disagrees with you.
That is not a headspace where rules discussion is possible. Rules interpretation requires considering competing possible meanings which is impossible if you don't accept that alternative meanings are even possible.
You disagree that there is any difference in what the term 'action' and 'event' mean in the context of the Starfinder game?Event is not a game term. Unless you want to ready a laser beam for gencon?
You also can't separate out half of a compound term and expect it to keep its meaning. A tiger shark is not a cat. A [triggering action] may not have to be a specific [game definition of action].
Why isn't 'event' a game term? What makes a term a 'game term? Why is 'action' a game term.
Also please answer the previous question. This answer makes it look like you are ducking the question.
P.S. Triggering event isn't a compound term. A compound term is a word like duckbill or rowboat. It's when you take two distinct words and combine them into a single word. Triggering event is 2 separate words. In this case triggering is the adjective that describes event (noun).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah. I see. I understand. Let me see if I can explain the initiative count and it's workings in Starfinder.
Imagine each round is a stopwatchk with a countdown to 0. And when you roll initiative you get slotted into that timer. The top number is the highest initiative. So in our example, 25, would be the top of the stop watch. So round one begins. You click the timer. At 25, the SE goes. Etc.... Round 2 comes along. Reset the stopwatch. At initiative count 25, all the triggers from the readied actions occur and All the player move to the current initiative count. Count 25. They actually move up the initiative count. After the SE completes his round 2 turn, the characters may now take their turn.
In readied action the text reads that when the triggering event occurs you are moved to the current...
That's not how I understand initiative. It's not a countdown repeated, it's a cycle. There's round 1 count 1, round 1 count 2, round 2 count 1, round 2 count 2, etc.
If you interpret it your way you end up with the silliness of using a standard action in round 1 to move your initiative order in round 2 up sooner... only you still keep that standard action because it was 'readied'. If that was the case, everyone would be doing this to try and stay on top of initiative and chain actions back to back. A near zero drawback method of moving your initiative wherever you want it.
It's very obvious that this is not the case. I don't know of any way to improve your initiative. You definitely never improve your initiative with zero drawbacks.
]That's not how I understand initiative. It's not a countdown repeated, it's a cycle. There's round 1 count 1, round 1 count 2, round 2 count 1, round 2 count 2, etc.
If you interpret it your way you end up with the silliness of using a standard action in round 1 to move your initiative order in round 2 up sooner... only you still keep that standard action because it was 'readied'. If that was the case, everyone would be doing this to try and stay on top of initiative and chain actions back to back. A near zero drawback method of moving your initiative wherever you want it.
It's very obvious that this is not the case. I don't know of any way to improve your initiative. You definitely never improve your initiative with zero drawbacks.
That's a perfectly wonderful way of understanding initiative. Let's use that in our example and see where it lands us.
To re-iterate, Each round is a cycle. Your initiative count is where, in the round, you act.
So for our example it would be as follows for the first round:
SE Round 1 Count 25
Henchman Round 1 Count 18
Players 1-4 Round 1 Count 10,9,8,7
Round 1 comes along. SE performs his actions. Henchman go next. Players ready an action to attack the SE if he puffs a cigarette. Wouldn't you know it.. the SE takes a smoke break next round.
Round 2 comes along. SE takes his smoke break and puffs a cigarette. All of the players readied actions trigger and they move up to Count 25 in the initiative since it's currently count 25 of round 2. None of the players have taken their actions for round 2 yet as the readied actions were from Round 1. Players take their turns before the henchman. Henchman decide.. HEY.. u can't do that and they ALL ready an action to attack the player that the SE points at.
Round 3 comes along. Since the SE and the players all act on Count 25, you have to determine who goes first. The CRB provides the guidelines on this. So let's say that the SE has the highest initiative bonus because.. GUESS WHAT. He's SIGNIFICANT! So the SE takes his turn and points at Kenny!!!. The 6 henchman's readied actions resolve and they all attack Kenny. They move up to initiative count 25. Now EVERYONE is on initiative count 25... who goes next? Well, since the players and foes share initiative count then you determine it by initiative bonus. Then .. ROLL OFFS if there are still ties.
You are ABSOLUTELY right that this can lead to some ridiculous and comical outcomes. Hence one of the reasons that readied actions are something we need additional developer input on. You can't move your initiative to wherever you want in the round. I think it would be more precise to say that you can, with a readied action, move your initiative count to any other combatants initiative count. I gave the above example specifically to demonstrate 2 points. 1). That it's both comical and at the same time dangerous. 2). That there is an upper limit on where you can go to in the initiative order. You can't keep jumping each other as players can act on the same initiative count and the initiative count is never re-rolled once combat begins. Who acts first, when initiative count is the same, is determined by a subset of rules. If everyone in the combat decided to do this, then you would basically come down to players taking turns based on their total initiative modifiers with ties having a roll off.
Regardless, the players and henchman in both round 2 and round 3, respectively would get to act on their turn for that round despite the readied action being triggered in the same round that they had an upcoming turn. There's nothing prohibiting them from taking their full turn despite their readied action occurring in that round. If it were the case that you must sacrifice your entire next turn of actions if the readied actions does not occur in the same round that you ready it, then the player with the lowest initiative count would never ready an action as it would force him to miss his entire next turn.
Does this make sense?
Does this make sense?
No.
To move your initiative it must be delayed. The ridiculousness you have pointed out only works if the initiative is moved up instead of down. If your initiative is delayed, there is no ridiculousness.
This changes your initiative count to the current initiative count for the remainder of the combat.
I get it, this line is confusing.
It is the current initiative count, the boss is acting, your action triggers. Your initiative is now the current initiative count. The boss finishes his actions. Next initiative count. Your turn won't come up again until the next round.
In round 1 the PCs ready.
Round 2 - The boss acts. The PCs shoot. The boss finishes his turn. The henchmen ready actions as you described.
Now it's round 3. The PCs didn't act in round 2 because their actions triggered and their initiative count was changed. Boss & players are at the same init count. The boss goes first because initiative modifier (probably) He points. The henchmen shoot as a readied standard. The boss finishes his actions, and now it's the PCs turn, their first since they readied.
If they choose not to ready, and take their turns, it is now round 4 and everyone is at the same count. Ordered purely by their initiative modifier, and they may need to make rolls if anybody has the same modifier.
Edit:
If they choose not to ready, and take their turns, it is now round 4 and everyone is at the same count. Ordered purely by their initiative modifier, and they may need to make rolls if anybody has the same modifier.
A bit of clarification. Now that round 4 has started, the GM throws out the old initiative count, and creates a new one based on everyone having the same initiative: individual initiative modifiers and roll offs. He would have also done the same thing on round 3 when the boss and the PCs had the same initiative at the start of the turn.
Magyar5,
The CRB 249 has an example of an event and that event is an Action. The book says:
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.
The triggering event in the example is: the foe shoots you, which is a ranged attack action.
Is this not fair to say?
This is a good example and I am glad you found it! This allows us to open a dialogue which, I feel is critical, to why there is such misunderstanding in this realm.
Let's preface this with how synonyms work because in this case you are asserting that event is a synonym of action and that they can be interchanged. That MAY be the case but in order to do that, we have to discuss how synonyms actually work. Synonyms can only be substituted when 2 words share the same or nearly the same meaning in SOME or all senses. This is the definition from Miriam Webster. That last portion I capitalized is very important in proper usage. Let's walk through an example using the following words.
Endure
Bear
At cursory glance these 2 words can have the same or nearly the same meaning. Let's put them in a sentence and attempt to interchange them.
The heat was more than I could endure. (Sure.. this works. Bear is a synonym of Endure in this sentence).
I ran quickly because I was chased by a bear. (hmm.. doesn't work so well here. Endure is not a synonym to bear in this case).
As you can see, because words have different definitions they may, or may not be synonyms of one another and thus you may, or may not interchange them at will. So this begs the question.. how can I tell when it's applicable. The answer is.. it's complicated. The reason it's complicated is that words can have nuanced meanings with each definition it has, that may be the same or nearly the same as another word, however they can be easily misinterpreted or applied. This is where inference and precedent and many other tools come in to play to make a good determination. This is why we have questions about readied actions and triggering events.
Let's take a look at these 2 words in particular and let's see if we can determine if, in this case, they may be a synonym. (I take my definitions from Miriam Webster because, 1). Google sucks with definitions and 2). I don't want to pay for the Oxford English dictionary.)
Definition of event
1a archaic : OUTCOME
b : the final outcome or determination of a legal action
c : a postulated outcome, condition, or eventuality
Example: in the event that I am not there, call the house
2a : something that happens : OCCURRENCE
b : a noteworthy happening
c : a social occasion or activity
d : an adverse or damaging medical occurrence
a heart attack or other cardiac event
3 : any of the contests in a program of sports
4 : 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
5 : a subset of the possible outcomes of an experiment
Definition of action
1a : a thing done : DEED
b : the accomplishment of a thing usually over a period of time, in stages, or with the possibility of repetition
c actions plural : BEHAVIOR, CONDUCT
d : INITIATIVE, ENTERPRISE
2 : an act of will
3 : the bringing about of an alteration by force or through a natural agency
4 : the manner or method of performing:
a : an actor's or speaker's deportment or expression by means of attitude, voice, and gesture
b : the style of movement of the feet and legs (as of a horse)
c : a function of the body or one of its parts
5 : the initiating of a proceeding in a court of justice by which one demands or enforces one's right
also : the proceeding itself
6a(1) : an engagement between troops or ships
(2) : combat in war
b(1) : an event or series of events forming a literary composition
(2) : the unfolding of the events of a drama or work of fiction : PLOT
(3) : the movement of incidents in a plot
c : the combination of circumstances that constitute the subject matter of a painting or sculpture
7a : an operating mechanism
b : the manner in which a mechanism or instrument operates
8a : the price movement and trading volume of a commodity, security, or market
b : the process of betting including the offering and acceptance of a bet and determination of a winner
c : financial gain or an opportunity for financial gain
9 : sexual activity
10 : the most vigorous, productive, or exciting activity in a particular field, area, or group
11 —used as a director's command to start filming part of a movie or television show
12 : spin or rotation given to a ball or puck by throwing or hitting it in a particular way.
As you can see. Action has a LOT of definitions. Feel free to compare the 2 sets of definitions to find one that is the same or almost the same. I have looked through them and the closest definitions between them is 2a for event (something that happens) and 1a for action (a thing done). Those are nearly the same meaning. They aren't precisely but.. pretty close and can serve in this case.
So we attempt to apply this mutual meaning to your example.
"If your readied action is purely defensive, such as choosing the total defense action [if a foe you are facing shoots at you](yes.. this mutual definition seems to apply here as this is a thing done/something that happens), it occurs just before the event that triggered it."
Now we seem to have a good fit here. Now lets see if this definition also fits for how the CRB uses the word action. As you eloquently stated, shooting a ranged weapon is a standard action. So let's go there and see how Paizo uses the word action. If we can substitute this meaning then sure it will be a synonym in this specific example. Off to CRB 244. I encourage you to read through this section entirely as it helps set precedence for how Paizo defines and uses the term 'action'
"An action's type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform within the framework of a 6 second combat round". Uh oh. The very first sentence of Action Types is starting to unravel our ability to claim these mean the same or nearly the same. Remember, that the definitions we chose aren't exactly the same.
You can have more than one action in a round? Sure as long as they are one standard action, one move action, and one swift action. You can combine these to make a full action.
So, lets see. In a single round I can perform 3 actions. Fair enough. So I can attack a target. Wonderful. That's what I want to do. How long does this take to accomplish and what does it compromise. Well.. you attack. with a weapon. Is it instant? I mean.. do I have to swing, or shoot, or pull a trigger?? CRB doesn't say. We can assume that yes you have to do all those subset of actions to accomplish an attack. Fair enough. Let's go to moving. When I move, do I instantly arrive at my location or do I have to employ some form of mechanical locomotion? Well.. duh.. obviously you have to pick up your feet and move. How long does it take? Well, it's not instant.. so.. part of the 6 seconds. Maybe 2 seconds.. 3 at most. Now a swift action. Same concept. Just.. fewer sub actions which means this happens quickly. Are we noticing a theme with the term action when used by Paizo? If you weren't looking at the term event, and had to pick a definition from the list for action, which definition most closely resembles how Paizo is using the term 'action'?
Well.. that's easy. It's definition 1b. Each action is accomplished over a period of time, in stages, or with the possibility of repetition (think spell casting where u have to chant the same words 3 times in a row).
Hmmmmmm... Now we are coming in to some conflict. It's quite clear that the way Paizo uses action is not the same as the way an event is defined. It seems that each action, and sub action, creates many events. For example, attacking has a series of actions, each one, when complete creates an event (occurance or outcome).
With this precedence it would be fallacious to assume that event and action could be interchanged at will throughout the text (Try reading CRB 244 - 249 substituting event for action in every case. Doesn't read easily). Remember my first example. Where you can have a synonym of one word without having the synonym of the other based on context? This is a more advanced version of that.
Back to the example. Is the event 'shoots at you' the summation of the entire Attack and standard action? Or is it the final event in a series of events that is the summation of the entire Attack action.
Well, that's what this comes down to. You may say yes, this narrow definition they both share can be applied in every instance. I don't think it is the case. I also don't think it was the developers intent that this is the case.
I would be glad if they sounded off on this for clarification. Until they do, I doubt anyone will agree with my assessment. I think this is because it's harder to regulate as a rule. It opens the readied action to be something fun and interesting at the game table, if my understanding of the rules is accurate. It has it's problems but it makes the readied action something more than a wasted turn.
I get it, this line is confusing.
It is the current initiative count, the boss is acting, your action triggers. Your initiative is now the current initiative count. The boss finishes his actions. Next initiative count. Your turn won't come up again until the next round.
This denotes that only a single creature may act in any initiative count. How would you resolve initiative if 2 players both rolled a 25?
Are the actors in an initiative count locked in to their initiative order when the round begins? If so, why wouldn't the players be allowed to act in round 2 at initiative 10,9,8,and 7?
Also, please help me find the rule in the CRB that states changing your place in the initiative count requires your turn in the round that your initiative count changes. I'm looking for it atm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This denotes that only a single creature may act in any initiative count. How would you resolve initiative if 2 players both rolled a 25?I get it, this line is confusing.
It is the current initiative count, the boss is acting, your action triggers. Your initiative is now the current initiative count. The boss finishes his actions. Next initiative count. Your turn won't come up again until the next round.
The same as always. initiative modifier followed by a roll off. the initiative count would be 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. not 25, 17, 11, etc.
Are the actors in an initiative count locked in to their initiative order when the round begins? If so, why wouldn't the players be allowed to act in round 2 at initiative 10,9,8,and 7?
Also, please help me find the rule in the CRB that states changing your place in the initiative count requires your turn in the round that your initiative count changes. I'm looking for it atm.
And here is where the FAQ is technically needed. There isn't anything that specifies how a changed initiative order is resolved other than that one ambiguous sentence. RAI seems obvious to me, but this thread exists so it isn't obvious to everyone.
I think the correctly phrased question would be something like 'How do turns and rounds resolve after a readied action is triggered? when an initiative is changed to the current count, what then happens?' Another thing that would be nice to have - a list of triggers for readied actions. Actions, entering exiting spaces, verbal commands, environmental happenings (doors opening, bridges collapsing).
Technically, yes, your reading could be argued for. There is nothing that says directly 'this is how it works or doesn't work'. That your reading is easily exploited to chain action after action makes me consider it obvious that it is an incorrect reading, but... the language is ambiguous.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you have a defensive readied action before someone shooting you at 10 you move to 10.0001. If you have an offensive readied action to someone shooting you at 10 you move to 9.99999. I've never seen it done another way.
If you have a defensive readied action before someone shooting you at 10 you move to 10.0001. If you have an offensive readied action to someone shooting you at 10 you move to 9.99999. I've never seen it done another way
Welcome to Starfinder. They do everything the other way here! ;)
Technically, yes, your reading could be argued for. There is nothing that says directly 'this is how it works or doesn't work'. That your reading is easily exploited to chain action after action makes me consider it obvious that it is an incorrect reading, but... the language is ambiguous.
When you say chain action after action, what do you mean? Please explain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why isn't 'event' a game term? What makes a term a 'game term? Why is 'action' a game term.
Event isn't a game term because a game term is something that a game defines. For example, armed, laser, darts, standard action, move action, guarded step all have a specific definition in this system. with their own rules. It's why a human holding a laser machine gun is armed according to regular english but not armed according to the game.
Event does not.
Also please answer the previous question. This answer makes it look like you are ducking the question.
"Have you stopped washing your koala?"
"I don't own a koala...""Why aren't you answering the question?"
It was answered. Again, you asked how "Starfinder" defined the word event. This presumes that starfinder defines the word event. It does not. You cannot see the same word used twice in a 400 page text written re written, edited, and re edited by different authors and reasonably expect an exactingly consistant use of every word that was used.
You also removed the word from context that i believe is important. "Triggering event" as opposed to "triggering action". Again, that you think context is irrelevant according to your paradigm is not an inconsistency in mine.
Starfinder uses a lot of words with the word action in it.
P.S. Triggering event isn't a compound term. A compound term is a word like duckbill or rowboat.
No. That is a compound WORD not a compound TERM. A compound term is made up of multiple words that aren't smooshed together, like Automatic Teller Machine or local area network. You can't walk up to an automatic teller machine and complain it doesn't work unless you put your card in. Why isn't it automatic ?
Welcome to Starfinder. They do everything the other way here! ;)
It's not starfinder that does it differently.
No. That is a compound WORD not a compound TERM. A compound term is made up of multiple words that aren't smooshed together, like Automatic Teller Machine or local area network. You can't walk up to an automatic teller machine and complain it doesn't work unless you put your card in. Why isn't it automatic ?
I do believe you just made that up so you wouldn't be wrong.. lol
A word is a term.An expression is a term.
That doesn't make 2 words chained together a compound term.
It's true that a term is a "word or expression that has a precise meaning." For example. 'Tiger Shark' is a term with a precise meaning. 'Triggering event' is a term with a precise meaning.
That doesn't make them a 'compound term'. 'Automatic Teller Machine' is a term. Each word is distinct and unique but when combined in this term creates a precise meaning. Like I said before. You should look up words before you use them. It makes you extremely hard to understand for people who know what those words mean.
Here's a term that could be argued is a compound term. "Homemade peppermint'. See how each word in that term is a compound word. Thus you could legitimately argue it's a compound term.
Event isn't a game term because a game term is something that a game defines. For example, armed, laser, darts, standard action, move action, guarded step all have a specific definition in this system. with their own rules. It's why a human holding a laser machine gun is armed according to regular english but not armed according to the game.Event does not.
What about unarmed? Is that a game term?
So. If the game doesn't define a word. Then we can pretty much say that if we feel like it, this word can mean what we want it to mean and then perhaps use it as a substitute.OK.. well let's see what the game defines!!
Where could we find an easy list of game terms that are in the game.. hmmm..
I know.. let's go to the glossery. Most books have those. And that's the purpose of a glossery. To define terms in context of the book.
I like this journey we are on. We are discovering all kinds of ways to learn new things.
Hmm... okie dokie.. CRB 512. Let's start with your claim. Event.. event.. event.. well bless your heart you are correct. Event is not defined in the glossery. So you are 100% correct. It's not a game term.
Let's see what else is not in here. You said.. armed. Oh.. you are right. Armed isn't in here. Another check for you. Looks like you are on a roll.
Anything else not in here we are talking about.. hmm... action HAS to be in here right. I mean.. it's core to the disagreement.
WHAT THE MACRON!!???? Action is not in here either. Oh my. Looks like action isn't a game term either. Holy crap. Neither is trigger!!! Or Unarmed!! God help us how are we to make sense of this now??? We should burn this book and game system. It's too damn inconsistent.
Or.. we can just use English to understand what these words mean. Then use the context of the book to see if the developers use them in a manner consistent with the definitions we check out.
Oh.. BTW all u readers. Since unarmed isn't a game term... if you are playing a Bantrid or Astrazoan you are just screwed. You are always unarmed. Better go get a prosthetic as your first puchase.
When readying an action you simply say if event X happens, that is the triggering action and then say what kind of action your response is.
For example:
I ready my ranged attack action for when my foe enters the room (his move action being the triggering event ), I shoot him (my standard action).
This is a great example and gives us a chance to demonstrate why substituting action for event doesn't work for the readied action.
Let's set the stage so we have a full picture.
There is an enemy on the other side of a doorway. He looks like he will be entering the room. You decide to ready an action (standard action; attack) when your foe enters the room. (I will play along and call this the triggering action, though the book says it's the triggering event.)
Your foe takes his turn. He moves 5 feet into the doorway and 5 more feet into the room. He sees your team sitting there with guns pointed and decides.. nope.. this isn't for me and uses the rest of his move action to go back through the doorway, around the corner, and into the other room.
If you substitute action as the developers use it (a turn is a set of actions) then you would fire your weapon at what? You don't have line of effect to the target any more so you have no chance to shoot anything. The foe met the conditions for you to fire. He entered the room. But because we are trying to allow a complete action to resolve before taking your readied action, it breaks the readied action.
Now, let's do it the way the rules are written with the understanding that an event is an occurrence with the trigger of 'when my foe enters the room'.
Foe moves 5 feet into the doorway and 5 feet into the room. STOP. The foe has entered the room. The event has occurred. The readied action NOW occurs. You shoot at the foe. But let's say you missed. The foe decides emphatically (now that you ALSO shot at him) that this is a BAD room so he takes the remainder of his move turn and goes back through the doorway, around the corner, and into the other room. For good measure, as his standard action, he closes and bolts the door.
Now ask yourself which of these scenarios make more sense? Are you utterly incapable of firing a weapon which you have trained and ready with your finger on the trigger awaiting a specific event to occur? (Does it take you 1-3 seconds to fire the weapon) Which is most likely to happen in a game world? (Time freezes for everyone in the game world during the action of any participant?) Lastly, ask yourselves which of these do you think the developer intended. If it's the latter example then the RAW may be confusing, but with a little outside reading and common sense, make sense. Now, we aren't the developers so we can't ascribe intent. It may be that their intention was the former example. Hence the request for clarification on the intent.
I don't claim to know what the developers intended. I only read the rules as written and attempt to understand them and apply them in a reasonable way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do believe you just made that up so you wouldn't be wrong.. lol
If you are incapable of understanding a phrase from its component words.
When the context of the phrase should have made it clear.
With brackets spelling out why it mattered
With a definition.
AND provided examples examples. Then somewhere on the screen in front of you should be a search engine. And with 30 seconds of using it you can find
A term consisting of more than one word, for example "local area network".
Syn. multi-word units
Syn. multiple word terms
It will keep you from being glaringly wrong when accusing other people of being dishonest and undercutting your claims to your own authority.
What about unarmed? Is that a game term?
Yes. Just because you can only look in a glossary doesn't mean that that is the extent of the technical language that the game uses.
Formians are always considered armed
While the effect is activated, the scyphozoan is considered armed
Vesk are always considered armed. They can
deal 1d3 lethal damage with unarmed strikes
Your reach is the distance at which you can attack foes in melee combat. If you are wielding a melee weapon or are otherwise capable of making a melee attack (e.g., if you have your own natural weapons), you threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn (the exception is unarmed strikes—if you’re making unarmed strikes, you don’t threaten other squares)
You can attack with a weapon (or threaten an area with it, for all melee weapons except unarmed strikes) only if you are wielding it with the correct number of hands. When the rules refer to wielding a weapon, it means you are holding a weapon with the correct number of hands and can thus make attacks with it.
Armed is consistently used with a meaning in game. It is also occasionally used in colloquial English (such as a noodle armed necromancer or armed forces)
So. If the game doesn't define a word. Then we can pretty much say that if we feel like it, this word can mean what we want it to mean and then perhaps use it as a substitute.
No. This is the either or fallacy writ large.
If the game doesn't define a word or a term (and sometimes even when it does) you have to understand what the word means from the context of the sentence, paragraph, rule, and game that it's in. Yes, that is subjective. No, subjectivity is not the same as making up whatever you feel like. Different interpretations have different levels of sense, reason, evidence, consistency , usability and game balance you can use to help you determine what they mean. You also have the people who wrote those words saying "No, we didn't mean it that way" as a very large cherry on top.
Or.. we can just use English to understand what these words mean. Then use the context of the book to see if the developers use them in a manner consistent with the definitions we check out.
The way you attempt to understand english: parsing it like computer code, word for word, refusing to understand context as simple as two words next to each other changing their component meaning does not work. Making one bad argument from point A to B to C to D with blinders on while ignoring all evidence to the contrary does not work.
The way you read rules doesn't work. Accept that and try something else. Rules written to your persnicket level would be unreadable to anyone else. The rules written in conversational english are not written to your pernicket level. You can't read them as if they were or dismiss them as entirely meaningless.
Oh BNW. This has to be my favorite post you have made.
The absurdity of what you do here is just hilarious. I hope you meant it to be funny.
So what you did was challenge me to do exactly what you did. Except, the source you are quoting isn't a recognized source of authority on the English language. You are using the SDL Documentation center to claim that 'this is a real term'. The documentation center who specializes in defining words within the context of the IT industry. That's hilarious. Why didn't you quote from a recognized source of the English language? Like .. the Oxford English dictionary?
Next, you say that we can't use a glossary to define game terms. That's the PURPOSE of a glossary. To define terms used in a system. (And as a side note. You just attempted to use a glossary to define compound term.) I attempted to use the guidelines you provided for the definition of a game term and once you saw that it didn't fit your narrative you threw it out. So.. I guess 'event' IS a game term. And I guess armed is a game term as well. So your previous example of ' It's why a human holding a laser machine gun is armed according to regular English but not armed according to the game.' is what?? Let's just say you misspoke there. I won't hold you to that since, we all get a little excited in these forums.
You missed the sarcasm and rhetoric about throwing terms out. Won't bother addressing that as it's quite clear, by the context, I was being cynical and the question was rhetorical.
Lastly BNW, the way I understand English is the way that EVERYONE understands English. This is how it's taught to people when they are children. When you don't understand what a word means in a sentence you don't guess. You go look up the word, and of the MANY possible definitions, you choose the one that most closely fits and substitute that definition.
Let's do an example together.
I woke up and enjoyed an iftar before leaving for work.
This is a relatively new word in Miriam Webster. For those who don't know what it means, I encourage you to look it up. We could just guess and substitute something like shower, or jog.. and that makes the sentence make sense and in the context it sounds right. But that's not what the word means.
When you don't know what something means you go look it up, and apply the definition which is MOST likely applicable for the context of the sentence or paragraph.
That's EXACTLY what I have been doing from the beginning. That's what we do with the words 'action' and 'event' since the developers didn't add it to the glossary. It's an attempt to understand the rules AS WRITTEN. I'm not attempting to discern the INTENT of the developers. Just applying the rules as written
You have done nothing more than say that I have been doing it right all along and that's what makes this my favorite post from you. I've enjoyed it immensely.
Thanks!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do believe you just made that up so you wouldn't be wrong.. lol
Except, the source you are quoting isn't a recognized source of authority on the English language
You accused me of making it up. What you found was that it was technical language that I clearly did NOT make up. The options are not "a recognized source of authority on the english language" and "stuff BNW makes up". This is a conversation on the internet about a role playing game, not a grammarians doctoral thesis. Crying foul for using technical language or slang or a geek reference is patently absurd.
Doubly so when the phrase's meaning is clearly discernible from the component words, context, AND the example given.
You were wrong. Own up to it.
Next, you say that we can't use a glossary to define game terms
Just because you can only look in a glossary doesn't mean that that is the extent of the technical language that the game uses.
The glossary is not the only place technical terms are found does not equal we can't use the glossary to define game terms. Using a knife to dice tomatoes does not deny the existence of blenders.
Lastly BNW, the way I understand English is the way that EVERYONE understands English.
So you disagree with EVERY other poster here (an impressive feat by the way, the boards don't usually agree on ANYTHING with this high of a margin) AND the person that wrote those rules because...?
That's EXACTLY what I have been doing from the beginning. That's what we do with the words 'action' and 'event' since the developers didn't add it to the glossary. It's an attempt to understand the rules AS WRITTEN
Actually I'll take the ? off that last sentence.
You disagree with every other poster here: RAW advocate, RAI advocate, Munchkin and anti munchkin alike, because you do not use context at all. You are so busy looking up A word to pick one of 12 definitions that you don't read the words next to it. Forget missing the forest for the trees you're looking at bark. The rules as written includes all of the writing, not just one word at a time.
Read the sentence. It will not parse as objectively as... you seem to think picking one of 12 definitions is objective, but it will parse a lot better.
BNW.
Using a knife to dice tomatoes means you are dicing them. Not blending them. Sure blenders can exist. But if you were using a knife and dicing tomatoes and saying you were blending them and that dicing and blending are synonyms so you can just use them interchangeably and that when someone pointed out that you can't because they are different words and in the context you were attempting to swap them didn't make sense, well.. you would probably try and backpedal. Like ya did.
So. Do we agree that event is a game term? Is armed still out because you say it is? Or is it a game term as well.
U know what. In the spirit of getting along let's use the term 'Compound Term'. We don't need to, as the word 'term' denotes 'multiple words or a phrase which has a distinct meaning', but we can go ahead and adopt this term from the SDL glossary and bring it over to the Starfinder glossary. While we are at it, let's throw out the word 'sentence' too. Since Compound term will do just fine for sentence, since a sentence is just a bunch of words together that have a specific meaning. What do you think? Wanna just sit down and make up stuff as we go along? I mean we can. As long as we agree on the terms what's the harm in it. (I mean, other than no one else will know what we are talking about.)
The difference between you and every other poster on this forum is that everyone else is civil and capable of carrying on a discussion and conversation in a civil manner without resorting to underhanded and poorly circumscribed insults. I don't necessarily disagree with everyone else. I am having a perfectly civil conversation with Nimor and with Garrett and with other forum posters. And I think we are learning quite a few things about the rule set and how readied actions currently work, if they should be altered, and what impact the current writing of the rules for readied actions have on the game.
Compaired to readied actions in Pathfinder 1: In Pathfinder 1, you can interrupt in the middle of an action, but that line of text is not in the Starfinder version of readied actions. In SF, it’s before or after. So in your example, the foe completes his movement action first, forcing you to lose your shot.
Yes, if we agreed that an event and an action were the same thing. I contend that they are not the same thing in Starfinder and should not be used interchangeably for a variety of reasons. The least of which is that it makes readied actions contemptibly useless in the system and I am pretty sure that the developers didn't sit down and say...
"hmm.. lets create a readied action and make it so useless that anyone trying to use it will provide their group with such a laughable experience that they will be talking about it for weeks. *snicker*. Watch how this idiot loses the bulk of his turn for NO reason"
If you treat an event, like an event, it doesn't break the rules or the game. It simply creates a lot of fun and interesting opportunities within the game. It also does one thing I do disagree with. From a purely balanced perspective, I don't like that a spell caster could be interrupted and lose his spell slot. I think that's a pretty steep price to pay for a player or a foe. It's true that we can do a detailed analysis of the cost to benefit ratio for each party of the interaction, however just off the top of my head I feel like while the player with the readied action gambles with his readied action and can lose it if the triggering event doesn't happen, AND has to hit the AC of a spell caster to interrupt the spell, I think the cost of the spell and the action to cast it is enough to balance the bargain. Losing the spell slot on top of it is just mud in your eye.
For example: the foe stomps his boots on his way inside the saloon. Thats the event and ITS a move action
May I ask why you have readied this action? What is it that your character wishes to accomplish?
Ah, I see. So you are saying the triggering event is offensive or defensive?
Also I was wondering if you would be amicable to running a little thought experiment with me.