|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can I Ready with the following:
Trigger: A creature makes a melee attack
Effect: Step
or
Trigger: A creature makes a ranged attack
Effect: Stride
or
Trigger: A creature attacks
Effect: Step or Stride
The goal would be the Step/Stride out of range of a melee attack, or Step/Stride out of range or Line of Sight of a ranged attack. Since the creature already made the attack, they still "used" the action, but since I moved out of a valid targeting range, the attack doesn't hit me.
We know that with Attack of Opportunity, the Reaction resolves BEFORE movement if someone attempts to Stride away, and that they still "use" the action, so they can't change their minds afterwards to instead use that action on something else (like Strike or provide a component for a spell).
So does this work? Can I use this to effectively evade attacks, and force opponents to waste actions?
|
|
I mean, Attack of Opportunity works when the target declares that it will move, thus spending the move action, but obviously before the movement occurs, since that's how a melee Strike is able to still hit.
It seems like Ready should allow moving in response to an attack action, before the attack occurs. And if you're out of the attack's range, then it follows that the attack should just miss.
I would allow it. If only because when in doubt, you can always tweak the trigger.
In the playtest there were several reactions and free actions that had the trigger "you are about to do XYZ". Which clearly makes them trigger before the action. So you can set the trigger to "A creature is about to make a melee attack"
And stuff like your examples are exactly the kind of thing Ready is supposed to enable.
True - I guess this is one of the reasons why it takes you two Actions to prepare a one Action reaction. It has its uses, but in General it is a bad bargain. You trade 2 Actions plus your reaction vs his 1 Action.
But then I always shy away from giving People autosuccesses in stuff.
If the example works, it could lead to the Exchange of
[...]
Not sure I feel comfortable with that.
It is not auto-success. Because that trick should work only once against all but the stupidest monsters. And might not work at all against experienced fighters.
- if the monster has reach, it can voluntary go adjacent to the PC on the second try. Stepping won't save them then.
- if it has ranged options it will use those after getting tricked
- if it is somehow intelligent or has combat experience, it will notice the PC just attacking once and then staring blankly, waiting for something to happen. Readying an action should be noticable somehow... it's two actions! The monster will not know the trigger and action, but it might know that there is something foul going on.
- if the monster notices and correctly identifies (or just assumes) that the PC wants to trick it, it can attack someone else instead.
- the trigger must be somewhat precise. If the PC readies against "Monster makes a strike", a monster might try to trip or grab them instead. No strike, no reaction. How precise a trigger must be might vary from table to table, though.
EDIT: And if you fight a group of intelligent monsters, it would work (read auto-succeed) only once per encounter. The tricked monster's friends can see the PC pulling that off.
I suspect that readying an action would use up more of your actions than of your foe's actions, as it takes two of your actions to do that.
|
|
Two Actions and a Reaction all just to avoid one attack doesn't seem particularly strong. It seems pretty niche honestly.
I'm inclined to believe that this does work, except upon further reading of Ready, it looks like you can't prepare two types of actions. So you'd have to prepare Step OR Stride. However, it does look like you could just choose "A creature attacks" as the trigger, and choose which attack to trigger off of.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For reference, the GMG:
READY
The Ready activity lets the acting person choose the trigger
for their readied action. However, you might sometimes
need to put limits on what they can choose. Notably,
the trigger must be something that happens in the game
world and is observable by the character rather than a
rules concept that doesn’t exist in world. For instance, if a
player says, “I Ready to shoot an arrow at her if she uses
a concentrate action,” or “I Ready to attack him if he has
fewer than 47 Hit Points,” find out what their character
is trying to specifically observe. If they don’t have a clear
answer for that, they need to adjust their action.
When might you need to do that? When someone tries to come up with a really annoying rule-technical trick that grinds the game to a halt as everyone carefully considers cat and mouse action triggers.
Your mileage may very, but I've ruled that you can't.
I'm basing it on the GMG guidance that a trigger of a Ready action is not the same as a trigger from items/feats/etc., as it has to be visible to the character in game. So 'when he targets me' or even 'when he starts attacking', 'when his turn starts', etc. none of those are legal for me.
Unless something is a Disrupt reaction, I consider it to take place after the trigger - this is somewhat in line with how Starfinder defines Ready actions.
"Someone waits for an attack that might be coming, then decides to make an effort step away". This is basically what's happening and you're not allowing it by ruling against it. It's a perfectly reasonable scenario.
The cost in actions is very steep and the cost in actions alone makes it a bad bargain. There's absolutely no need to break the rules to prevent your players doing this. The game clearly allows it and your trigger can be "I wait for X enemy to attack me", the character can see the swing coming, the trigger is clear and simple, there's no point in ruling against it.
I would allow this, but slightly differently than what the OP wants. The player could ready a trigger of "When I'm targeted by an enemy" which will allow them to step or stride, but the enemy wont have wasted their action. But they may not want to stride or step to follow you.
I would allow this, but slightly differently than what the OP wants. The player could ready a trigger of "When I'm targeted by an enemy" which will allow them to step or stride, but the enemy wont have wasted their action. But they may not want to stride or step to follow you.
Exactly.
As long as you are not trying "You declared your action, so now it's wasted!" shenanigans, there's not really a reason to rule against that use of Ready Action.Unless, as Ascalaphus says, your game is suffering because of it.
I would allow this, but slightly differently than what the OP wants. The player could ready a trigger of "When I'm targeted by an enemy" which will allow them to step or stride, but the enemy wont have wasted their action. But they may not want to stride or step to follow you.
The rules clearly support this (at for melee attacks) because "I'm attacked from X monster" is a clear and simple trigger. Regardless, the cost is STEEP and I don't think this can be of much use outside some dire situations. If there are multiple targets the enemy can perceive one target clearly waiting for an attack while the other is fighting in earnest, for example.
Just to illustrate my point, I'm playing a Monk at 11th level and I rarely have to use more than one action to move around, yet there are times when actions are scarce. Spending two actions and my reaction to trade an action against a significant enemy (someone I would very much like to avoid attacks) is a steep cost that would rob me from my Stand Still reaction, third attack (sometimes a lot more when I have haste and Flurry Warden's Boon), trip or straight up healing my teammate with my Healer's Gloves (this situation often come up exactly when the lack of actions is most severe).
It is not a useless course of action for sure, but in practice is too clunky and cumbersome to use for little to no effect in most situations (rarely you'll be truly 1 on 1, and against a single boss you'll likely not be targeted).
It may seem as an "auto-succeed" when you're only looking at the result, but when you take into account cost and effective situations you'll see it's a bad, bad bargain.
I would allow this, but slightly differently than what the OP wants. The player could ready a trigger of "When I'm targeted by an enemy" which will allow them to step or stride, but the enemy wont have wasted their action. But they may not want to stride or step to follow you.The rules clearly support this (at for melee attacks) because "I'm attacked from X monster" is a clear and simple trigger. Regardless, the cost is STEEP and I don't think this can be of much use outside some dire situations. If there are multiple targets the enemy can perceive one target clearly waiting for an attack while the other is fighting in earnest, for example.
And I'm not disallowing it, I'm saying you're not going to have caused the monster to have wasted their action by doing this.
The action cost is not steep, especially if the party has the action advantage, like vs. bosses. A martial still gets their first attack (or Flurry), which is a major portion of their offense.
Compare to a 2-action Heal, except it has unlimited use and might put you in a more favorable spot (which will likely cost that enemy another action to get to you). Against a BBEG's crits, that's similar damage, plus you may interrupt some attack routine combo (grab/swallow or similar).
Against melee bosses, this should be standard practice.
Always auto-deny the boss's primary attack? Hell ya.
(In practice it'd likely be every other round, yet if all the front line is moving on the same trigger, they can stick together fairly well. Add reach weapons for more synergy.)
A simple way to tell if the tactic is too disruptive is to imagine all the enemies are doing this when they have the action advantage, i.e. when facing a cluster of goblins. Let's say the goblins only take their first attacks (because often that's the only good one anyway), then Ready these actions.
Who would think this some cunning strategy vs. a giant headache?
They might never pull their melee weapons. Players would have to make a point of hunting down the one that used its Reaction already (or moved before firing). Add Goblin Scuttle for even more shenanigans (like Readying for your attack, and moving next to the un-Readied goblin you're attacking so they can scuttle back from you.) Then only a few of the Goblins would need to Ready! Oh boy.
You can perpetually deny enemies of their primary attack, while getting your primary attack. It's even worse if they used Flurry because now they're on their tertiary attack!
I understand many enemies and many parties in many situation would have difficulties implementing this. Yet I can't think of any situation when it does work that adds to the enjoyment of the game, and many situations where it'd detract.
Can I ready a strike instead of a stride? If the monster attacks me or moves, I strike without MAP.
Readied attacks retain MAP. So you can ready your first attack at full bonus, but you can't take one attack and then ready a second one at no penalty.
Can I ready a strike instead of a stride? If the monster attacks me or moves, I strike without MAP.
I think you only wouldn't have MAP if you didn't make an attack on your turn.
Otherwise yes you can ready to attack if attacked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just thinking that a Readied Skirmish Strike could be fairly effective.
(And way too effective if it could also interrupt their attack.)
Just thinking that a Readied Skirmish Strike could be fairly effective.
(And way too effective if it could also interrupt their attack.)
It would be very effective, but I might actually let this one work. Not every character will have access to this (or a similar) feat and even if they have access not everyone will take it. Since it requires an investment to work I would allow it.
The action cost is not steep, especially if the party has the action advantage, like vs. bosses. A martial still gets their first attack (or Flurry), which is a major portion of their offense.
Compare to a 2-action Heal, except it has unlimited use and might put you in a more favorable spot (which will likely cost that enemy another action to get to you). Against a BBEG's crits, that's similar damage, plus you may interrupt some attack routine combo (grab/swallow or similar).
Against melee bosses, this should be standard practice.
Always auto-deny the boss's primary attack? Hell ya.
(In practice it'd likely be every other round, yet if all the front line is moving on the same trigger, they can stick together fairly well. Add reach weapons for more synergy.)A simple way to tell if the tactic is too disruptive is to imagine all the enemies are doing this when they have the action advantage, i.e. when facing a cluster of goblins. Let's say the goblins only take their first attacks (because often that's the only good one anyway), then Ready these actions.
Who would think this some cunning strategy vs. a giant headache?
They might never pull their melee weapons. Players would have to make a point of hunting down the one that used its Reaction already (or moved before firing). Add Goblin Scuttle for even more shenanigans (like Readying for your attack, and moving next to the un-Readied goblin you're attacking so they can scuttle back from you.) Then only a few of the Goblins would need to Ready! Oh boy.You can perpetually deny enemies of their primary attack, while getting your primary attack. It's even worse if they used Flurry because now they're on their tertiary attack!
I understand many enemies and many parties in many situation would have difficulties implementing this. Yet I can't think of any situation when it does work that adds to the enjoyment of the game, and many situations where it'd detract.
The cost is clearly high, there isn't room for debate there. If you don't think that's steep, that's another matter, but the action economy investment is high. Also, I specifically mentioned that a boss wouldn't fall for that simply because it is obvious that when you concentrate to avoid some specific action, in this case obviously waiting to dodge an attack, the single enemy could simply choose another target, thus the one that did this would just waste their Readied action. The same would apply to Goblins.
My argument is that the rules fully support this course of action and in my opinion, this course of action is very valid, albeit it isn't good the vast majority of the time. My line of thinking is coming from an actual play standpoint where most of the players in my party have barely any actions left any round, rare are the times where we have an action without any clear use (our Alchemist had many of such rounds. Our player just retired the character after level 10 because she didn't feel the character was contributing enough, it was true). For our dual-wielding ranger? He straight up dropped the Parry feat line because the action economy was simply too unfavorable and many times he had either to mark another target, move or outright attacking again (not to mention the times when he had to draw his weapons).
Two actions plus a reaction is a significant investment for something that realistically will not have that much of an impact. It's a reactive playstyle that has plenty of mitigating factors despite its obvious heavy investment. Reach, battlefield space and targets available will just make this action meaningless, let's also not forget that difficult terrain will stop it as well and strides will trigger reactions.
|
|
The action cost is not steep, especially if the party has the action advantage, like vs. bosses. A martial still gets their first attack (or Flurry), which is a major portion of their offense.
...
Against a BBEG's crits, that's similar damage, plus you may interrupt some attack routine combo (grab/swallow or similar).
Against melee bosses, this should be standard practice.
Always auto-deny the boss's primary attack? Hell ya.
Ya, my Giant instinct barbarian definitely wouldn't mind denying a boss monster even just 1 attack that will likely crit in exchange for his 2nd and 3rd attacks.
Hell if there was a class feat in PF2 like the old crane wing that would automatically deny the first hit i think every class would auto take it.
The action cost is not steep, especially if the party has the action advantage, like vs. bosses. A martial still gets their first attack (or Flurry), which is a major portion of their offense.
...
Against a BBEG's crits, that's similar damage, plus you may interrupt some attack routine combo (grab/swallow or similar).
Against melee bosses, this should be standard practice.
Always auto-deny the boss's primary attack? Hell ya.
Ya, my Giant instinct barbarian definitely wouldn't mind denying a boss monster even just 1 attack that will likely crit in exchange for his 2nd and 3rd attacks.
Hell if there was a class feat in PF2 like the old crane wing that would automatically deny the first hit i think every class would auto take it.
Barbarians can't use it at all. At least not in their go-to state of Rage, since it's a concentrate action. So you're either not raging to do this or you're using moment of clarity to do it.
|
|
Barbarians can't use it at all. At least not in their go-to state of Rage, since it's a concentrate action. So you're either not raging to do this or you're using moment of clarity to do it.The action cost is not steep, especially if the party has the action advantage, like vs. bosses. A martial still gets their first attack (or Flurry), which is a major portion of their offense.
...
Against a BBEG's crits, that's similar damage, plus you may interrupt some attack routine combo (grab/swallow or similar).
Against melee bosses, this should be standard practice.
Always auto-deny the boss's primary attack? Hell ya.
Ya, my Giant instinct barbarian definitely wouldn't mind denying a boss monster even just 1 attack that will likely crit in exchange for his 2nd and 3rd attacks.
Hell if there was a class feat in PF2 like the old crane wing that would automatically deny the first hit i think every class would auto take it.
Ah, good catch.
|
|
So yeah, the best you could get for your trigger would be "threat moves close to me", which means they haven't yet used a Strike (or etc.) Now, the tactic still might work that round - if they come after you, you move farther than they can follow and Strike, and there's no one else around for them to Strike at ... that could still make them "lose" an opportunity. But not always, and they would still have that action for SOMEthing (maybe a Stride next to you with a murderous gleam in their three eyes?)
Rules wise would the creature be "bound" to move to a certain square with Stride or would he be allowed to follow the retreating PC?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So yeah, the best you could get for your trigger would be "threat moves close to me", which means they haven't yet used a Strike (or etc.) Now, the tactic still might work that round - if they come after you, you move farther than they can follow and Strike, and there's no one else around for them to Strike at ... that could still make them "lose" an opportunity. But not always, and they would still have that action for SOMEthing (maybe a Stride next to you with a murderous gleam in their three eyes?)Rules wise would the creature be "bound" to move to a certain square with Stride or would he be allowed to follow the retreating PC?
Depends on interpretation of how the actions unfold.
Let's say Mr. A set trigger for when Mrs. B gets next to him.
B moves, gets next to A so A moves.
If you rule A's action interrupts, then B is still in the middle of moving and can keep going on the same action (if they have movement remaining.) ETA: Assuming a normal Stride, you aren't committed to go to an end square while you're in the middle of it.
If you rule A's action follows B's, the B has ended that action and must use another action to catch up to A.
So maybe A sets the trigger for when B stops moving (to insure that action has ended, but not rely on being able to interpret what is or isn't an attack coming).
Then A could move away after B moves, but before the attack, right?
Except some moves are linked to attacks, like Pounce, Sudden Charge, or Flyby Attack most of which can reasonably be interpreted in-game as moving right into A with their attack, not stopping first (sometimes not stopping at all as they travel past).
I'm of the mind that Reactions have to witness the action in-game that triggers them, means that action occurs. Many class abilities & feats give Reactions that can predict/interrupt/retroactively occur, but that's what makes them special.
Given that, I'd say it's better to trigger off of them being next to you since "stopping" seems like a mechanical discernment. In-game there's no telling if the opponent "stopped" since they haven't chosen their next action yet. Two Strides resembles one longer Stride in-game. You wouldn't really know if they're trying to move around you or swing until they swing, and then it'd be too late (though you could deny them their second attack). All IMO.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This doesn't work.
The trigger has to take effect before you can react which means the Attack has to be rolled otherwise the trigger and reaction do not occur. If you deny them range to make the attack then the attack cannot be declared let alone resolved.
I'd allow it and have the Step take place after the attack is resolved in this situation which could still prove quite helpful in denying the opponent another action to attack you.
That said, if you made your trigger "An opponent enters melee range with me > Step then I'd allow it but in this situation the opponent doesn't really lose out on at attack, they simply have to spend another action to move closer if that what they want to do.
Each Action is resolved as it's declared one at a time so if they Action is declared for the opponent "I move the beast to location X/Y" which is in range for them to make their attack. If the movement/positioning is the trigger that's totally cool and the opponent would end their movement in the offending square/location just prior to the reaction and would force them to take another separate Action to close the distance if they cannot reach into melee.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So in the whole "is spending two of my actions to make an enemy lose their action" discussion, I think what's really important is to consider monsters with 2-action abilities. Which is a LOT of the monsters.
If one character can trade two out of their three actions to make the boss unable to use its two-action cool ability, that's not "expensive", that's a bargain. And one that can suck all of the fun out of fights because monsters can't use their special abilities anymore and have to just resort to samey small actions.
First, this is a terrible idea because of the general trade in action economy is against the player trying to pull this off. There may be some cases where it is not, but that is fairly rare.
Second, this is a terrible idea because of how it is likely to be seen by the rest of the gaming table. The amount of rules lawyering involved in coming to the conclusion that it works is fairly steep. Even if you manage to prove that it works, you are likely to gain the animosity of the rest of the table. Not a good place to be in. (If, on the other hand, the entire table is on board with this, go ahead and run with it)
------
Now, my thoughts on how things should work:
Actions are generally atomic - they either work entirely, or they don't. And if they don't happen, then no costs have been used to pay for them. Exceptions, like Attack of Opportunity being able to interrupt a spell and waste the spell slot, or the Stand Still feat - will have to specifically call out that they can interrupt an action after the action's costs have been spent.
So in this scenario, you could have a trigger of 'an enemy moves adjacent to me' and then make a step or stride action as a reaction. But since reactions happen for each 5 feet of movement and don't cause the end of the move action, then the enemy can continue their movement after your triggered reaction. They wouldn't have to end their movement in the square before the trigger happens and thus not be able to move to follow you without spending another action.
A trigger of 'an enemy begins to attack me', or 'an enemy targets me with a melee attack' don't work since those aren't things that the character would be able to observe. At least not quickly enough to react to.
And setting a trigger of 'when an enemy attacks me' would work fine. But the triggered reaction would happen after the attack action finishes - so after the attack roll and damage rolls have been resolved. Then you can step or stride away.
Wouldn’t a trigger have to be an Action, not an intention? If the trigger is “makes a melee Strike,” then making a strike is the trigger. The trigger can’t be “a creature intends to Strike” unless you’re reading its mind or something. The triggering action has to happen for the reaction to occur.
|
|
Wouldn’t a trigger have to be an Action, not an intention? If the trigger is “makes a melee Strike,” then making a strike is the trigger. The trigger can’t be “a creature intends to Strike” unless you’re reading its mind or something. The triggering action has to happen for the reaction to occur.
There are plenty of reactions with a trigger of simply being targeted by an attack. Such reactions are resolved before any rolling happens. A readied Step's trigger could be worded similarly. The reaction would be a disruption of sorts, with the GM being given license to decide whether the triggering attacker loses their action (as a GM I wouldn't).
And if you're out of the attack's range, then it follows that the attack should just miss.
Not really. If you're out of the attack range, the attack is invalid to begin with. The creature in question isn't allowed to attack a creature it can't attack, by definition.
If your action is to move away when someone is about to attack you, they'd get their action refunded to them, because after the trigger happens it's no longer a valid action for them to attempt.
And if you're out of the attack's range, then it follows that the attack should just miss.Not really. If you're out of the attack range, the attack is invalid to begin with. The creature in question isn't allowed to attack a creature it can't attack, by definition.
If your action is to move away when someone is about to attack you, they'd get their action refunded to them, because after the trigger happens it's no longer a valid action for them to attempt.
The Target was valid when you Targeted it though. It became Invalid after you already spent the Action, thus you would lose the action, just like you lose a Spell if the Target becomes Invalid after you Cast it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The key is the concept of "disruption." In order for the attacker to lose their action, the triggered reaction has to disrupt the triggering action.
Various abilities and conditions, such as an Attack of Opportunity, can disrupt an action. When an action is disrupted, you still use the actions or reactions you committed and you still expend any costs, but the action’s effects don’t occur. In the case of an activity, you usually lose all actions spent for the activity up through the end of that turn. For instance, if you began a Cast a Spell activity requiring 3 actions and the first action was disrupted, you lose all 3 actions that you committed to that activity.
Although it is not explicitly stated, the way the Disrupting Actions rules are written, the implication seems to be that a reaction has to actually say that it disrupts the triggering action in order for those rules to kick in. By default, reactions do not disrupt their trigger. I would argue that this means that the attacker would still get to take their attack as though the defender had not moved.