|
Readying costs two actions, so assuming you started the round adjacent to your enemy, they just spend their 2nd action moving up to you, and attack you again.
Playing cat-and-mouse is certainly a viable option for many encounters. Definitely not something you want to use for all encounters.
You'll especially be in a world of hurt if they have an Attack of Opportunity available to them.
And not really an option for any type of spellcaster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's viable and a a good way to handle Level+2/Level+3 enemies. However, I wouldn't say that their Strike action would be lost. They've targeted you with the attack, but haven't rolled the attack. They keep their action, but now you're farther away. Spending two of your actions to waste one or two of a powerful opponent's is quite sound strategy in my book.
That only work against a melee enemy, and it's questionable whether or not they loose the action.
This has always been a problem with readied actions and the way they interrupt other actions, and how they should be run.
If the enemy has a ranged attack this strategy wont work.
I wish PF2 had included the restrictions from Starfinder with regard to readied actions, to make it clear what should happen.
In my opinion, this kind of strategies is hard to use. You need to be sure the enemy will come for you, you need the enemy to be quite stupid (because I expect a readied action from someone who makes only one action during their round) and that the enemy doesn't decide to go for something else than attacking you in melee.
I think if it works it's worth the action lost.
It is an excellent strategy early on in combat. Rather than spend two actions moving up to a stronger enemy, or just delaying until after the enemy goes and possibly lands one powerful blow on you, you can take one action to do something interesting (move to where you want the battle to take place, attempt to intimidate, cast a one action spell), and then ready an action to essentially dodge. I don't think it is an every round strategy but it can be an excellent sungle turn strategy.
So then what's the advantage of this over using two actions on your turn and then one action to move away? (1) So that you're in range and thus a target for the creature, and (2) so you can move away from whichever creature decides to go after you first?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't work.
Reactions, unless specified, occur after the trigger and do not interrupt the trigger. Nimble Dodge (et al) has specific language that overrides this general rule (otherwise the feat doesn't function). This Ready Action to Stride trick does not override the general rule.
I suppose you could use it to avoid being grabbed by a tentacle or tripped by a wolf (unless they have improved versions) since you'd Stride away after their Strike, but before their follow up action.
A party could also use it to scatter when the BBEG approaches so it has to use two movements, one to get there (and trigger the scatter) and another to catch one of them (if it can!). That could be better than it moving & getting two actions (especially if those actions are a breath weapon/AoE/combo attack/etc.).
Wouldn't be so bad for an archer or others w/ 1-action offense at range.
A Ranger or Rogue w/ Skirmish Strike (or a Monk w/ various) could Strike/Step away & Ready to Stride away once the enemy Steps up, so it only gets one attack too (while the party hopefully tilts the balance.)
They could also Ready Skirmish Strike to Strike when the enemy approaches then Step away (as it's one-action, even if it has two sub-actions).
So then what's the advantage of this over using two actions on your turn and then one action to move away? (1) So that you're in range and thus a target for the creature, and (2) so you can move away from whichever creature decides to go after you first?
In theory, they waste an action on the initial attack which can't be completed, and then have to move to follow you, and then can attack.
In your proposed method they just move, and don't waste the first action.
Personally, I'm against these sorts of interruptions causing lost actions. I was against it in PF1 and still am in PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't work.
Reactions, unless specified, occur after the trigger and do not interrupt the trigger.
No, they happen before the trigger unless it's a move action that doesn't move you out of your square.
Personally, I'm against these sorts of interruptions causing lost actions. I was against it in PF1 and still am in PF2.
I've never seen abuse of such type of ready actions. In PF2 case, this is far from being overpowered. You pay 2 actions for a chance to interrupt one action. In general, players start doing such things when they are in desperate situations.
Even if you rule that the player has to take their move action after the enemy's move action and before the attack, it is a decent first turn for a rogue or other squishier character if you win initiative, but you don't want to rush ahead and face all the enemies by yourself.
By and large, winning the initiative in PF2 can be a real mixed can of worms for most characters, especially if the rest of your party rolls low. If you are a damage dealer and not a battlefield controller, there is very little chance of your first turn changing much about the course of the encounter (you are not likely to drop a foe of significance in your first turn). It can be better than delaying because it can allow you to take a single move action at a more useful point in the turn order, but keep your high roll for executing a very efficient second round, which has the potential to really make a difference.
That only work against a melee enemyDisagree, if you ready a Stride to move behind a wall completely out of view in response to a ranged attack, it's the same kind of situation.
Reactions, unless specified, occur after the trigger and do not interrupt the trigger.Can you please advise where exactly this rule appears? I've been looking for a while for something exactly like this (which of course would break the above) but have not been able to find anything.
I went on a hunt, yet with no luck.
The situation I'd seen in a comment thread was if an enemy casts a spell, a Ready action occurs after the spell is cast. There wasn't a way to set the trigger to "starts to cast a spell" in any meaningful way since the casting would always complete. There was some surprise from PF1ers as it meant that spells couldn't be disrupted except by abilities that specifically said so.Not finding it in The Archives of Nethys, so I'm beginning to think it may have come from a dev, or worse, the playtest.
The language I did find was that a Reaction (or triggered Free Action) could occur during another action. There wasn't mention that the Reaction slid in front of the triggering Action, though we do have examples of that in feats.
If planning to use the OP's tactic, I'd check with the GM first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reactions happen before the action that trigger it.
If you read attack of opportunity, it's quite obvious:
"Trigger A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it’s using.
You lash out at a foe that leaves an opening. Make a melee Strike against the triggering creature. If your attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a manipulate action, you disrupt that action."
For the attack of opportunity to disrupt the manipulate action, it must happen before the manipulate action that triggers it. Also, to be able to attack an enemy that leaves a square, the attack must happen before he does so, otherwise it'll be out of reach most of the time.
The only case where reaction happens after the action are move actions without square change. And this case is specified in the rules.
So, even if RAW is not clear, RAI is.
I think the problem here is that some places that treat reactions and readied actions as occuring after, and some as happening before, and sometimes as interrupting other actions. It's not consistent.
I'm okay with both before, or after, just not interrupting.
The difference being, if an enemy targets you and you have a readied action to move behind a wall, that's fine. You can move behind the wall, but the archer doesn't lose their action, they can target someone else.
I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with them losing the action.So interrupt is the only way I don't want it to be.
I think the problem here is that some places that treat reactions and readied actions as occuring after, and some as happening before, and sometimes as interrupting other actions. It's not consistent.
I'm okay with both before, or after, just not interrupting.
The difference being, if an enemy targets you and you have a readied action to move behind a wall, that's fine. You can move behind the wall, but the archer doesn't lose their action, they can target someone else.
I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with them losing the action.So interrupt is the only way I don't want it to be.
Well, on paper, Reactions are not supposed to interrupt actions, unless specified (like Attack of Opportunity specifies for Manipulate actions). So, you can consider that the attack lands even if after the reaction you are no more a valid target, just because you started your reaction while being a valid target. So, the sequence would be:
- The enemy attacks you.- You move.
- The attack is resolved ignoring the fact that you are now out of reach but taking into account everything that your reaction may have triggered (possible variation in defense/offense because you are no more at the same place or because your move may have triggered other reactions).
In technical terms, the validity of a target is determined when you start the action.
I think the problem here is that some places that treat reactions and readied actions as occuring after, and some as happening before, and sometimes as interrupting other actions. It's not consistent.
I'm okay with both before, or after, just not interrupting.
The difference being, if an enemy targets you and you have a readied action to move behind a wall, that's fine. You can move behind the wall, but the archer doesn't lose their action, they can target someone else.
I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with them losing the action.So interrupt is the only way I don't want it to be.
Using reactions before the actual action can still cause the enemy to "lose" actions, of course depending on how much rewind or retargeting is permitted, e.g. if you move out of sight / reach and nobody else is in sight / reach their declared ranged or spell attack action may be wasted.
By the way:
...Free actions with triggers and reactions work differently. You can use these whenever the trigger occurs, even if the trigger occurs in the middle of another action.
...When you commit to an activity during your turn in an encounter, you commit to spending all of the actions it requires. If the activity gets interrupted partway through, you lose all of the actions you would have spent on that activity...
In technical terms, the validity of a target is determined when you start the action.
As per the above quoted rules I don't think so.
Scenario: Evil NPC and good PC cleric stand adjacent to a downed PC player being at 0 HP and dying 3 condition. PC cleric goes first and readies to single-action heal the downed PC as soon as the NPC cleric starts casting assuming that the NPC cleric will go for the kill. NPC cleric commits to casting Death Knell. PC cleric interupts using his heal reaction thus bringing the other PC player to above 0 HP. As the PC is no longer a valid target for the spell the NPC cleric just lost 2 actions and the spell.
In technical terms, the validity of a target is determined when you start the action.As per the above quoted rules I don't think so.
Scenario: Evil NPC and good PC cleric stand adjacent to a downed PC player being at 0 HP and dying 3 condition. PC cleric goes first and readies to single-action heal the downed PC as soon as the NPC cleric starts casting assuming that the NPC cleric will go for the kill. NPC cleric commits to casting Death Knell. PC cleric interupts using his heal reaction thus bringing the other PC player to above 0 HP. As the PC is no longer a valid target for the spell the NPC cleric just lost 2 actions and the spell.
The proper rule is :
"If you choose a target that isn’t valid, such as if you thought a vampire was a living creature and targeted it with a spell that can target only living creatures, your spell fails to target that creature. If a creature starts out as a valid target but ceases to be one during a spell’s duration, the spell typically ends, but the GM might decide otherwise in certain situations."
So, the PC can die if the DM decides so.
It also clearly supports what I was suggesting to Claxon as RAI (even if it's not the only way to handle it as a GM, and it's not encouraged (through the word typically), it's perfectly valid to check targets at the start of the action).
The proper rule is :
"If you choose a target that isn’t valid, such as if you thought a vampire was a living creature and targeted it with a spell that can target only living creatures, your spell fails to target that creature. If a creature starts out as a valid target but ceases to be one during a spell’s duration, the spell typically ends, but the GM might decide otherwise in certain situations."
So, the PC can die if the DM decides so.
It also clearly supports what I suggested to Claxon as perfectly RAI (even if it's not the only way to handle it as a GM).
I did ponder about this rules section for quite some time and deliberately chose not to use or quote it here because in my understanding spell duration is not identical with casting duration.
Spells that last for more than an instant have a Duration entry.
Death Knell has no duration entry.
Right...
Anyway, there's nothing about a target being invalid during the action. What you quoted speak about interruption, which is not the case if you move out of reach, you don't interrupt the action, you become an invalid target during its resolution.
So, per RAW, my ruling is possible. I don't enforce it, I think we are in a case where there is no clear rule.
Right...Anyway, there's nothing about a target being invalid during the action. What you quoted speak about interruption, which is not the case if you move out of reach, you don't interrupt the action, you become an invalid target during its resolution.
So, per RAW, my ruling is possible. I don't enforce it, I think we are in a case where there is no clear rule.
Yeah, the thing is I think we have a good grasp and even a rules definition how to disrupt actions (e.g. via AoO) however there is no clear definition how to interupt an action, though a monk readying stunning fist may do.
Yeah, the thing is I think we have a good grasp and even a rules definition how to disrupt actions (e.g. via AoA) however there is no clear definition how to interupt an action, though a monk readying stunning fist may do.Right...Anyway, there's nothing about a target being invalid during the action. What you quoted speak about interruption, which is not the case if you move out of reach, you don't interrupt the action, you become an invalid target during its resolution.
So, per RAW, my ruling is possible. I don't enforce it, I think we are in a case where there is no clear rule.
After thinking more about it, I tend to agree with Claxon. A Ready Action costs you 2 actions and a reaction to perform a 1-action action. So, it's not very interesting. But if now you interrupt an enemy action, it suddenly becomes far more action efficient, especially if it's a 2-action action, like Cast a spell or Power Attack.
So, if your character has no interesting reaction (like half of the classes), you can very easily use Ready an Action to perform an action you were planning to perform in a way that can also disrupt an enemy action in the process.An example that happened to me: My Sorcerer was next to a 10ft. reach AoO enemy. So, I had to make 2 Steps to avoid an attack of opportunity while casting, which was screwing my round.
Instead, I could have done one Step and ready the second one on an enemy attack. So, if the enemy attacks me, I disrupt an attack, which is very nice for a round where I wasn't able to do anything. And if it doesn't attack, next turn I can Step and cast a spell.
Using a Ready action in this case was extremely powerful with no real drawback.
Using a Ready action in this case was extremely powerful with no real drawback.
Two notes. First, the enemy can use reactions too! Second, and this is nowhere in the rules, how much of it is known to the opposing force? In our group at least our GM tells us if an enemy is readying an action/reaction, not just what it has been readied and he assumes the same knowledge for our enemies.
Using a Ready action in this case was extremely powerful with no real drawback.Two notes. First, the enemy can use reactions too! Second, and this is nowhere in the rules, how much of it is known to the opposing force? In our group at least our GM tells us if an enemy is readying an action/reaction, not just what it has been readied and he assumes the same knowledge for our enemies.
Even with this knowledge, it's hard to know what the enemy is doing. And it can clearly slip into metagaming as the DM knows what is the readied action and what are the triggers.
Anyway, I understand why Claxon wants to avoid it. It's a can of worms in my opinion. So, if it happens only rarely, I don't think it's an issue. But if a player adds this strategy to his toolkit, as a DM, I may ask him to stop as it can be disruptive.
Using a Ready action in this case was extremely powerful with no real drawback.Two notes. First, the enemy can use reactions too! Second, and this is nowhere in the rules, how much of it is known to the opposing force? In our group at least our GM tells us if an enemy is readying an action/reaction, not just what it has been readied and he assumes the same knowledge for our enemies.Even with this knowledge, it's hard to know what the enemy is doing. And it can clearly slip into metagaming as the DM knows what is the readied action and what are the triggers.
Anyway, I understand why Claxon wants to avoid it. It's a can of worms in my opinion. So, if it happens only rarely, I don't think it's an issue. But if a player adds this strategy to his toolkit, as a DM, I may ask him to stop as it can be disruptive.
Yep. It can become very disruptive if it's used consistently. Once in a while I wouldn't be bothered, but I've GM'd for and been a player at tables where people have made it standard to abuse this sort of tactic, and I really came to despise it.
"The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a –5 penalty to your attack roll."
So, it looks like you do, as you used an attack action that has been inefficient due to the lack of target. The same than attacking an invisible enemy and failing the flat check.
|
Here is my take: Nimble Dodge grants you a SPECIAL exception to the normal rules in that it fundamentally changes EVERY attack that affects the Rogue who still has a Reaction left to take in that it creates a new timing window where the character can decide to do something,
Oh wow! Another profile pic line break? How crazy! Yay formatting!
Attack is Declared
Nimble Dodge is triggered
Rogue decides to use or not use Nimble Dodge
Attack is Rolled
Now, without the Nimble Dodge Reaction, that window does not exist at all. The rules of the Feat itself outline a brand new scenario that isn't accounted for in any other section of the rules and by extension, we should assume that this is a case of Specific overrides General. I do not believe that this "trigger window" can ever be applied to ANY other effects at all beyond ones that explicitly spell out that you can make this decision before the attack is rolled. You can specify a trigger to function based off events that occur such as "the start of your turn" or "an opponent uses the cast a spell activity/action" but you CANNOT base a generic trigger to be "trigger when another trigger could trigger but does not." That's quite honestly munchkin gamist nonsense to say otherwise in my opinion.
The leap from "Nimble Dodge lets me do this special thing" to "Nimble Dodge creates this window for all effects and purposes" is too large to be sustainable here. If you take advantage of the unique trigger from the Feat then you've just used up your Reaction and applied the +2 AC. I do not interpret this Feat as universally granting you a new "trigger window" that you can use for Readied Actions or anything else since it doesn't specify in any manner that this is actually something your Character can do.
The setting of triggers can be really tricky, I think that's why it is spelled out that all of these things are more or less subject to GM approval. The triggers are supposed to be keyed off "events", and they are resolved after the trigger occurs except in specific circumstances where you have an ability that grants you the opportunity to use the Reaction as it is written. If that explicit permission to interrupt something that is taking place isn't outlined in the specific Reaction itself (Ready Action does not include this type of permissive wording)
In short, I do not believe you can "recycle" a trigger which has unique timing effects from a Reaction you're granted to do one unique thing into any other Reactions. You're trying to trigger a Reaction off another Reaction which you're actively NOT using, in other words, a non-event.
Yep, many of the triggers are pretty meta, and have to be for their feats (et al) to function.
I'm not sure a DIY Ready-Reaction would/could have such omniscience/prescience. Plus the alacrity.
It wouldn't just be heroes capable of such deeds, but peasants too.