I was curious on how the community views this.
Front line Champion is in combat with a sword wielding goon. Hits pretty hard.
Champion turn goes as follows.
Action 1: Raise shield
Action 2 and 3: Ready a disarm for when the Goon declares an attack action.
Goons turn.
Action 1: Strike at Champion
This is where the Champion gets to try to disarm the goon.
If the Champion critically succeeds, does that mean the goon has lost its strike action? And then has to spend an action to pick up its weapon, leaving only 1 Action remaining?
If the Champion succeeds does the Strike action that initiated the disarm take the -2 penalty? Followed up by any other strikes also taking a -2 ?
What are your thoughts?
*edited for specifics and more clairifion
A few things
I don't think ready triggers are meant to be based off of meta concepts like "declares a strike", I could be wrong however, but I doubt it.
However, "I ready to strike XXXX foe when they swing a weapon at me" should be fine.
I would determine sequential events based on the trigger described by the player. If the player disarms the striking foe first then I would allow the success to apply the penalty to that weapon and the crit success to disarm the target, however the target would still be able to make their strike action as they technically haven't taken it yet and it allows for unarmed strikes.
If the player description was when they were hit, then I would check their temperature and ask if they were feeling well before letting the target get a strike off first before allowing the player to make a disarm check ;).
~~~~~~
Further notes: this is a horribly inefficient use of a reaction for a champion, who would almost always be better with using a champion reaction, shield block or raising a shield (reactive shield). imo. Two actions and a reaction spent readying a disarm is really inefficient, especially as the target can simply pick up their weapon on the same turn.
Further notes: this is a horribly inefficient use of a reaction for a champion, who would almost always be better with using a champion reaction, shield block or raising a shield (reactive shield). imo. Two actions and a reaction spent readying a disarm is really inefficient, especially as the target can simply pick up their weapon on the same turn.
I'll disagree only because in my head I was picturing a Level 14 Champion, with both Quick Block and Divine Reflexes.
So the Champion would still have both a shield block and a champion reaction left.
Would readying an action to trip be better?
I do see your point about too meta. I was do like "I ready my disarm action for when the goon makes a swing with a weapon.
I'll disagree only because in my head I was picturing a Level 14 Champion, with both Quick Block and Divine Reflexes.
Even if you have quick block and divine reflexes i wouldn't use two actions and a reaction on doing a disarm.
I would rather have two more actions and use additional champion reactions or shield blocks.
Yes a ready action with trip would be more effective/reliable. But so would just tripping someone on your turn or on some other trigger, but neither as much as having two extra actions and a reaction for the champion reaction/shield block.
Setting aside the wisdom of the action, I don't believe in PF2 that you would disrupt the trigger to your Ready (though you could in PF1).
While many PF2 feats have meta-triggers, I believe the Ready action/reaction needs to work off of visible, in-character cues. If you wait until the person attacks, as in swings their sword, that sword has swung. There's no window provided before the action, not retroactively, not unless a special ability gives you one.
If you frame the Ready as when they prepare to Strike (pull back their weapon or whatnot), then the reaction would occur before the Strike and they lose no actions, so you may as well set the trigger to when they come at you.
A good rule of thumb is the action which triggers has to actually occur (so as to be witnessed) for it to trigger. Reactions that disrupt or are determined by meta-aspects (i.e. Guardian's Deflection) are special.
If you frame the Ready as when they prepare to Strike (pull back their weapon or whatnot), then the reaction would occur before the Strike and they lose no actions, so you may as well set the trigger to when they come at you.
No on this part. HARD no.
Maybe even the hardest no.
If one player declares that they're readying an action to disarm when an enemy strikes, and another declares that they are readying an action for when an enemy prepares to strike, both characters are doing the same thing. Player B should not get a better result on the same in-universe action because they phrased their readied action more precisely.
If you frame the Ready as when they prepare to Strike (pull back their weapon or whatnot), then the reaction would occur before the Strike and they lose no actions, so you may as well set the trigger to when they come at you.
No on this part. HARD no.
Maybe even the hardest no.
If one player declares that they're readying an action to disarm when an enemy strikes, and another declares that they are readying an action for when an enemy prepares to strike, both characters are doing the same thing. Player B should not get a better result on the same in-universe action because they phrased their readied action more precisely.
That's silly.
"I ready for when he lifts his bow" differs from "I ready for when he releases his arrow", and similar phrasing applies to melee attacks (though some situations may be undetectable). The first example happens before the Strike attempt, the other after. Plus I'm saying in neither case does the readied action disrupt or overlap with the enemy's action.And we're not running PF2 w/ a computer AI; we can interact with the GM so the phrasing matches our expectations (if said expectations can be met). As a frequent GM, I've had to clarify readied actions many times. I'm sad for you if you play in games where either side attempts to parse words in order to gain advantage.
I'd let the player simply state they're trying to time the action to before (or after) the opponent's Strike. Without a special ability, attempts to time them concurrently would result in reacting after, and I'd let the player know that.