There was a lot of discussion about interrupting spells with readied actions a while back, but I couldn't find anything that addressed this issue...
If a melee character with Step Up and Strike gets into melee range of a caster, that caster is completely neutralized with no further action from the melee character. Are there any options for the caster to actually... do anything, in this situation? Casters already got a hard nerfbat in Starfinder, but this seems a bit much.
(previous not-entirely-applicable discussions:)
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ukyg?Disrupting-spell-casting-questions
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs42ffi?Clarification-on-interrupting-spells-wit h-a
Readied actions simply will not interrupt a spellcaster in starfinder. (unless they're casting a 1 round summoning with a summon spell, in which case you would have interrupted them on your turn anyway)
As for options a spellcaster has if they are next to a melee character with Step Up and Strike, they exist.
A 10 foot guarded step with something like Shadow Nerves prevents Step Up from following.
Using a spell that specifically does not provoke AoO avoids all risk of interruption.
The spellcaster may have something to do as a move action, like using greater feint to make the melee attacker flat-footed so that they can't use a reaction.
The caster might use an attack instead of a spell, if they can make a worthwhile attack.
All of these things depend on the specific caster, but as a general action, they could eat the AoO moving away without making a Guarded Step, and then cast.
|
They've been resolved for a long time as far as I know:
- Readied actions can't interrupt spells because aggressive readied actions will go off after the trigger is resolved.
- Attacks of Opportunity however are resolved before finishing the triggering action, so they can interrupt spells.
- Spells are only interrupted by making the caster fail a save or hitting them with an attack roll. So even if you managed to toss a grenade as an AoO somehow, you would only interrupt casters if they failed the save. And Magic Missile won't interrupt them at all because it doesn't use an attack roll.
Basically, the rules balance the lack of a "concentration" check from PF1, with there not being that many things that actually qualify to interrupt concentration in Starfinder.
In my experience playing characters with Step Up and Strike, NPC casters usually have some weapon to fall back on and because of the way NPCs are built, they're better with those weapons than most PC spellcasters typically are. Also, pretty much all touch spells have a "doesn't provoke" clause, and if you did a Step Up I guess you just moved into convenient touch range..
Uh, they can always miss, you’re not neutralized by facing an AOO. Get combat casting to improve your chances.
There’s also a feat, archetype ability, and an augmentation that allow you to keep casting even if hit by an AOO.
Flash Teleport for 8th level Technomancers and Witchwarpers also lets you escape, as does Glitch Step for 5th level Technomancers.
The caster might use an attack instead of a spell, if they can make a worthwhile attack.
This is the default tactic my players and NPCs I run tend to use.
Yes, you can hope they miss, but if you also can grab mobility, you can hope they miss when you move away too.
Stamina means you can soak a few hits without too much worry in most combats. Moving away and then casting is a great tactic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are a caster standing next to someone with step up and strike you walk 30 feet away, take the regular aoo, and then blast them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are a caster standing next to someone with step up and strike you walk 30 feet away, take the regular aoo, and then blast them.
That sounds like what I was looking for, thank you.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
One important note for the DM: don't do that the first time. The bad guy..worse guy? Antagonist? Usually doesn't know about the step up and strike, so they should try to guarded step away from the melee at least once. You don't want to negate a characters investment in the feat line by just having them get the same AOO for walking away that everyone else gets.
One important note for the DM: don't do that the first time. The bad guy..worse guy? Antagonist? Usually doesn't know about the step up and strike, so they should try to guarded step away from the melee at least once. You don't want to negate a characters investment in the feat line by just having them get the same AOO for walking away that everyone else gets.
Yeah, definitely a good call.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The easiest thing if you realize an enemy has step up is to simply eat an attack of opportunity and move and then cast.
Step Up will do nothing to prevent it and it requires 0 investment.
So no, you're not completely nerfed. You're just going to take some damage along the way.
Another thing to remember is that casters are 2 feats away from being generally as good with weapons as anyone else.
Longarms proficiency + versatile specialization puts you on equal terms for damage. Add in weapon focus in you like to get you attack bonus closer to full BAB. If you don't full attack you can be about as a good as anyone else, and you can use the leftover move action to reposition yourself for casting. In general, you don't even have enough spell slots to cast all day, so you're going to want to invest in firearms anyways.
It's true casting isn't as strong in this edition, but casters aren't as far behind in traditional damage dealing abilities as they were in PF1 either.
Definitely this. I would recommend that, if you want to show that a particular set of bad guys are more clever and skillful than normal, don't have them automatically do the optimum counter for the PCs' favored tactics. Rather, come up with a few special tactics for *them*, which they use in battle. Give the players the chance to be attentive and come up with solid counters.
Something to pull once might be a hidden camera in a room with a lower level spellcaster. If the party sees it and turns it off, the baddie doesn't know you have step up and strike. If the party misses it and he sees you using the feat, he watches the fight like sportsteams reviewing a game and adjusts accordingly
Definitely this. I would recommend that, if you want to show that a particular set of bad guys are more clever and skillful than normal, don't have them automatically do the optimum counter for the PCs' favored tactics. Rather, come up with a few special tactics for *them*, which they use in battle. Give the players the chance to be attentive and come up with solid counters.
Something to pull once might be a hidden camera in a room with a lower level spellcaster. If the party sees it and turns it off, the baddie doesn't know you have step up and strike. If the party misses it and he sees you using the feat, he watches the fight like sportsteams reviewing a game and adjusts accordingly
Depends on how you're setting up the situation of course. Some parties will see that as an ass-pull, others will see it in the spirit it was intended.
Depends on how you're setting up the situation of course. Some parties will see that as an ass-pull, others will see it in the spirit it was intended.
Yeah, it would definitely be something the party has to be shown after the fight on camera but before fighting the big bad.
|
Darg, I can kinda see where you're coming from, but here's the key text from page 248 about reactions.
Unless their descriptions state otherwise, purely defensive reactions interrupt the triggering action: resolve the reaction first, then continue resolving the triggering action. Otherwise, resolve the reaction immediately after the triggering action.
There's a lot to unpack there, including saying "hold on, Attack of Opportunity certainly isn't a 'purely defensive' reaction!"
But here's the parts to focus on
. . . interrupt the triggering action. . .resolve the reaction first. . .continue resolving the triggering action.
So here's how a trigger and reaction normally flows:
1. Triggering action starts.2. Reaction starts and completes.
3. Triggering action finishes.
Attack of Opportunity doesn't violate this flow. "Attacks of opportunity are always resolved before the action that triggers them." The key word again is "resolved" which here means "finished" or "completed." The AoO doesn't start until after the caster begins the spell, but it finishes before the caster finishes the spell.
The rules text is explicitly saying that is how it works. As far as I can tell, the only reason people believe otherwise is because of an unofficial comment of a dev. This is what is leaving me confused. It might be culture shock instead of a misunderstanding.
The rules text also explicitly say that is NOT how it works. This is the reason people believe that spellcasting can't be interrupted with a readied action.
Under readied actions
If your readied action is purely defensive, such as choosing the total defense action if a foe you are facing shoots at you, it occurs just before the event that triggered it. If the readied action is not a purely defensive action, such as shooting a foe if he shoots at you, it takes place immediately after the triggering event.
So you are objectively, 100 percent NOT shot while spellcasting a standard action spell. The shot occurs after your cast which doesn't interrupt anything.
You are also objectively interrupted if shot by a readied action while casting a spell.
The "unofficial" comment of the dev is resolving the contradiction. Not making a house rule.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To successfully cast a spell, you must concentrate. The length of time you must concentrate to cast a spell is specified in the Casting Time entry in the spell’s description. Your foes can interrupt your spellcasting in a few ways, as described below.Concentration is part of casting, but concentration and the cast are two separate actions in time.
You are reading something that isn't there. Casting takes a defined amount of time. While you are casting you are concentrating. They are not discrete actions. Concentration just means "you are focused on casting the spell."
To successfully drive a car, you must concentrate. The length of time you must concentrate to drive a car is specified in the Driving Time entry in the destination's description. Your foes can interrupt your driving in a few ways, as described below.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To successfully drive a car, you must concentrate. The length of time you must concentrate to drive a car is specified in the Driving Time entry in the destination's description. Your foes can interrupt your driving in a few ways, as described below.
Good thing too. In previous editions of the game the concentration check for kids in the back seat was horrendous.
You are most at risk of taking damage while casting when a spell’s casting time is 1 round or longer, you have provoked an attack of opportunity, or a foe readied an action to attack you when you began to cast.
Yes indeed it does say this on page 331 of the core rule book and this is EXACTLY how I have played it at my table.
You can be interrupted by a readied action. The triggering action is "begin to cast." This readied action takes place after the triggering event. Which just so happens to happen before the spell comes into effect. This is not contradictory as a standard action is not an action but an action type. An action type is a defined term. The trigger for a readied action does not have to be a combat action. If you wanted to you could set the trigger to be when some one blinks, when the water hanging from a stalactite finally drops, or even when someone draws their archaic sword...
Again exactly how I have played it at my table.
If my players state to the bad guy. "Drop the weapon and surrender or you will be shot." and then states to me "If the bad guy does anything other than drop the weapon and surrender I shoot him."
If the bad guy does anything but drop the weapon I will allow the player to shoot him.
The triggering event was the bad guy doing anything but dropping the weapon.
I will give you a classic movie example of a readied action.
The final scene in Dirty Harry is all about a readied action interrupting an action.
Dirty Harry gives his "well punk, do you feel lucky?" while having his 44 pointed right at Scorpio. Scorpio reaches for the gun but BEFORE he grabs it he is shot dead.
The triggering event was reaching for the gun, NOT actually grabbing the gun.
As some would play it per their interpretation of the rules. Scorpio would have actually grabbed the gun and then been shot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is simply no contradiction.
You are correct, there is no contradiction.
Mostly because 1 round casting time spells are not 'action' casting time spells. They can be interrupted, even when you account for
Unless their descriptions state otherwise, purely defensive reactions interrupt the triggering action: resolve the reaction first, then continue resolving the triggering action. Otherwise, resolve the reaction immediately after the triggering action.Because '1 round' is not A) a move action, B) a standard action, C) a swift action, or D) a full action. So the old clause from reactions of:
Unless their descriptions state otherwise, purely defensive reactions interrupt the triggering action: resolve the reaction first, then continue resolving the triggering action. Otherwise, resolve the reaction immediately after the triggering action.
Never interferes with the text from 1 round cast time spells, because the caster isn't taking actions, they're taking a full action to start to cast the spell, and continuing to concentrate on the spell until the start of the next turn, which is interruptible, unlike a full action cast time spell.
Walking up next to a spellcaster casting a 1 round spell won't trigger an AoO, because they aren't taking an action at that point. However, readying an action to shoot such a caster will interrupt the spell, because the spell has not been completed by the time the caster's full action is over with, and the readied action goes off.
Edit:
You are most at risk of taking damage while casting when a spell’s casting time is 1 round or longer, you have provoked an attack of opportunity, or a foe readied an action to attack you when you began to cast.Yes indeed it does say this on page 331 of the core rule book and this is EXACTLY how I have played it at my table.
You can be interrupted by a readied action. The triggering action is "begin to cast." This readied action takes place after the triggering event. Which just so happens to happen before the spell comes into effect. This is not contradictory as a standard action is not an action but an action type. An action type is a defined term. The trigger for a readied action does not have to be a combat action. If you wanted to you could set the trigger to be when some one blinks, when the water hanging from a stalactite finally drops, or even when someone draws their archaic sword...Again exactly how I have played it at my table.
If my players state to the bad guy. "Drop the weapon and surrender or you will be shot." and then states to me "If the bad guy does anything other than drop the weapon and surrender I shoot him."
If the bad guy does anything but drop the weapon I will allow the player to shoot him.
The triggering event was the bad guy doing anything but dropping the weapon.
I will give you a classic movie example of a readied action.
The final scene in Dirty Harry is all about a readied action interrupting an action.
Dirty Harry gives his "well punk, do you feel lucky?" while having his 44 pointed right at Scorpio. Scorpio reaches for the gun but BEFORE he grabs it he is shot dead.
The triggering event was reaching for the gun, NOT actually grabbing the gun.
As some would play it per their interpretation of the rules. Scorpio would have actually grabbed the gun and then been shot.
While that works at your table, that is not how the rules are written. I'm not saying one is better than the other, in fact I agree with you, but rules questions should be answered with rules as written answers, even if they are nonsensical.
There is simply no contradiction.
There's a big one.
If you don't split "starts to cast" from the act of casting in the time line your shot will go after the cast. The shot lands after the cast, you're not damaged during casting, there's no interruption to your spell.
If you DO split starts to cast from the rest of the action, then why can't you just split "starts to..." from everything else? Attacking, talking, pressing a button to unleash the space raptors, etc? It would make the entire distinction between a readied offensive and readied defensive action pointless. There's an entire rule they put in that can be evaded with the player saying "starts to" so that even if two characters are trying to do the same thing (shoot the caster when he casts) their actions wind up completely different effects just because of how their players worded something.
The Devs have said multiple times that they made that difference specifically because with everyone carrying a laser pistol and no concentration checks in the game it would be impossible for a caster to ever get a spell off. Magic was weakened enough without a level 1 mook being able to counter your actions.
If you want a contradiction free term then technically yes your summoning spells/ 1 round casts can be interrupted by a readied action. Its completely pointless and only technically true because instead of just taking your turn (where you could shoot them twice with a full attack instead) but the option is there.
This is not contradictory as a standard action is not an action but an action type.
A german shepherd is both a Dog and a Canine. One could even be a dog a canine, and a duly appointed officer of the law. Just because something is one thing does not preclude it from being another.
The last person to argue this wound up saying that it wasn't a synonym it was a noun. Here there be madness....
An action type is a defined term.
Defined where?
The rules 100% say you can interrupt a spell cast with a readied action. Your interpretation doesn't even allow readied actions to interrupt a 1 round cast time which is 100% possible because of the explicit permission of the rules quoted above.
I don't think you get my interpretation then.
On init count 24.08 Deadeye readies his laser rifle to shoot Cosmo if he tries to cast
Cosmo starts to summon a creature on initiative count 19.00 (Cosmo has a terrible dex)
On 18.999 Deadeye Fires his readied action. Since Cosmo is still trying to cast at that point he can be interrupted. If he was casting a full round magic missile instead he wouldn't be.
The triggering event or triggering action or whether the triggering action refers to an in game definition of an action you have to wait to resolve is irrelevant for a standard action casting spell. The act of casting a standard action spell isn't divisible so there's no difference. It all happens on init count 19.00. If someone wanted to bullrush someone with a solarions standard action charge or Agile wavelengths while they were in the middle of a move to push them off the cliff then the difference would matter.
Edit: The developer post linked refers to readied actions as reactions. They are not. They don't use your reaction at all.
They've clarified this issue a few times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
re dispel magic. Theres no contradiction there. Dispel magic is defined as a defensive action so it can interrupt another action
Counter: You can use the energy of dispel magic to disrupt the casting of other spells. First, select an opponent and take the ready action to cast dispel magic when that target casts a spell. This is considered a purely defensive action
You are most at risk of taking damage while casting when a spell’s casting time is 1 round or longer, you have provoked an attack of opportunity, or a foe readied an action to attack you when you began to cast.
I am playing within the rules as written. It clearly states that you can ready an action to attack a caster when they begin to cast.
There is no debating this. It is right there in the rule book.
Does it contradict other rules in the rule book? Yes probably.
In the end it all comes down to the GM defining what they want a triggering action to be at there table.
I will accept if the bad guy begins to:
move
shoot
cast
talk
etc.....
To me if you cannot use all readied actions to interrupt someone from doing something there really is no point in taking a readied action.
It does not break game balance as if the players can do it, the the bad guys can do it also.
Where does it say that a readied action has to trigger off of a combat action? Where does it say it has to even be an action?
This is completely irrelevant. No. Its not what we're discussing.
The spellcasting being divisible or not is not dependent on it being an action. Moving is an action. It appears to me be divisible. Spellcasting is an action. Its a standard action. It's not divisible.
I'm not limiting ready actions to responding to the game definition of an action. "Call me yeller one more time...." cocks laser shotgun Is a perfectly valid use of ready even though saying "yer yeller" is a non action.
There are so many options to protect yourself from getting hit in the first place that this kind of "reason" is silly. Using a level 1 mook as an argument makes little sense. at level 5 you could have +12 KAC from just armor and dex.
+6 is the biggest level 5 armor I see. While possible I don't think a caster with a +6 dex at level 5 is a particularly good benchmark for examining what will happen under different readings of the rules.
Add in prone combat casting, and fighting defensively and you get +20 KAC.
You cannot both fight defensively and cast a spell. You're casting a spell, not attacking.
You also cannot assume a caster with max dex and armor and able to go prone and still have a good line of sight. Unless your caster is a ysoki its easy to move away from them or around a corner and ruin their turn that way. (since they'd have to get up and move). I have maxed dex biohacker, mystic.. not so much.
Lastly, mockingly putting reason in quotes and saying its bull does not make any sort of point. Anyone can do that to anything. If you need to mock to make a point for your position, reconsider your position. If you need to cherry pick that blatantly, reconsider your position.
To top it off, paizo added options to use resolve points to not be interrupted.
As an ability for one archetype. It might have been a better solution to make that available for casters than what they wound up going with, but again, you cannot parse the effects of an interpretation on the entire game by only zooming into the most coner of cases you can imagine.
If that mook readied his action, you could always not cast if it is too worrisome. It's not like the mook will be doing anything else.
Does standing there and doing nothing sound like your idea of fun? Would the game be more fun if casters have to guess whether someone has a held action to use their primary ability? I don't think it would.
Technicality is saying that full action cast time spells don't actually require concentration between actions.
Doesn't matter. He's hit while casting a one round cast spell. That pops the spell.
A diamond can be a diamond, square, and rectangle. A rectangle isn't always a diamond or a square or a trapezoid or etc.
You tried to use that it was a diamond as proof that it was not a rectangle.
It is relevant as that is what we are arguing about. A standard action cast time spell is divisible. You move your hand and speak a chant. Those are all individual actions that you are discounting.
What I'm discounting is the completely unevidenced idea that all of these spellcasting parts happen in a particular order and is made up of time discrete sub actions and events.
If the readied action happens prior to the standard action to cast slow, then haste can't counter slow. The same happens to all the other counter spells. It breaks the game.
No.
An attack of opportunity or defensive action goes during the cast. They happen at the same time.
If the readied action is not a purely defensive action, such as shooting a foe if he shoots at you, it takes place immediately after the triggering event
You're trying to get in before the spellcasting by dividing it up into "starts to cast" "casting" "finishing cast" . There is no evidence at all that it works that way. The evidence that it does NOT work that way is that it would make the rule distinguishing offensive and defensive readied actions completely pointless. If spellcasting has a start by moving your hand, begin to light up, trace a run in the air etc. then attacks have a wind up and a swing, pressing the button has extending your finger and moving your arm etc.
A standard action cast time spell takes a standard action amount of time to cast. You don't just stand around for a predetermined amount of time and the spell just magically fires of its own free will in an instant. You spend time making your hand gestures and chanting in concentration before the spell can come into effect. The game is telling you that actions aren't these rigid blocks that can't be touched.
It's also telling you that if you use a readied action you have to go AFTER that period of time. You're trying to go during or before. It doesn't work.
should I mention that it literally butchers the actual rules?
what, like core rulebooks covered in cows blood and organs? And I thought I took rules arguments seriously... Anything less than that is not literal.
And now I'm hungry...
Your interpolations are not the actual rules. Being able to divide the spell into starts to cast and casting and going after starts of cast to hit them while they are casting. It might be logical, it might make sense, there may even be a rules argument for it. But that is not the "Actual" rule.
In a perfectly logical, coherent, and non contradictory system you can extrapolate from A to B to C to D. I'm skeptical of the english languages ability to produce such a system, but I KNOW that the starfinder rules set is NOT that system (and the people that made it will be the first ones to tell you that)
Not all reactions resolve after the triggering action. Readied actions are not a reaction and are completely separate from them. A readied action is not an AoO. Nothing in the quote can be taken as fact.
Readied actions are not a a reaction by the game term reaction (ie the thing you only get one of and most people use for an AOO) but it is a plain english description of what you're doing: having your character react to the trigger you specified. Its a reaction not a reaction. I went up the stairs to go up a level, but I didn't get more mystic spells per day. (sort of like how you want to use action in the vernacular for waving your hand around as an action that you're shooting someone for doing)
The dev mentioned how he was wrong, but didn't bother to fix the post. If they did it might actually serve as a valid reference.
So the dev not only said it, but had the post edited after they said it. (I think it used to say attacks of opportunity instead of readied actions) They did this for a reason. You are not supposed to be able to interrupt casting with something as easy to do as a readied action.
This seems like one time to me as it's the only one being referenced.
purely defensive reactions preempt their trigger
Which is what you want offensive readied actions to do
And they reposted the argument in another thread dealing with the issue, just to be sure people got it. Because they specifically did NOT want readied actions to interupt spellcasting when spellcasting didnt have concentration checks.
Look, the game is not computer code. It's written by very failable (mostly) human beings writing for other human beings, then re writing, changed, and re writing things over and over. This is one of those things that was different in a bunch of iterations. Mistakes happen. The line about interrupting a spell with a readied action was a mistake left in from pathfinder. That fits in with the weirdness of treating shooting someone in the face like a defensive action.
If it works for you game, fine. It's just not the rule that the devs intended. I don't think it would make a game where I'd enjoy playing a caster either. If you're playing a home game work it out with your DM. If you are the DM work it out with your players. If you're in organized play, expect the DM to tell you oh HELL no if you try this.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "set the trigger to the start if casting" argument has always been nonsense. If I have two players, playerA says "i ready an action to shoot him if he casts a spell" and player B says "I ready an action to shoot when he starts to cast a spell" both characters are trying to do the exact same thing in universe. Giving them different results because one player was more finicky in how they worded their action is unacceptable.
Also, why exactly are we treating this long settled question as an open question in a new thread again? We already have hundreds of posts on this and an answer from the source.
No, it doesn't work. No, that doesn't contradict the rules in the book because long spells exist. Yes, this whole thing makes readied actions work in a way that doesn't feel great for common situations, and you may feel a need to houserule it.
Starfinder isn't MTG (thank god), You can go and cherry pick bits of the rules and string them together to get interpretations that are opposed to the intent of the rules. It's a thing that happens. There are multiple threads of people doing this to read through if you want.
However, developer intent was made crystal clear. If you are opposed to developer intent it's perfectly fine to houserule/rule differently at your table.
Am I reading the wrong book? Starfinder Core Rulebook correct? How is
[i[First, reactions resolve directly after the triggering action. So if you cast a spell and someone readied to shoot you if you cast, if the spell has a casting time of 1 standard action you get the spell off before the AoO gets made.[/i]
supposed to be crystal clear? How does "readied to shoot you" equate to "AoO gets made"? Of course the readied action would go off after the spell cast because the trigger is very different from that which is presented in the book. Not only that, if being made prior to the triggering action is all that is needed to interrupt the spell cast then why is there a debate on if AoOs interrupt spell casts? AoOs are resolved prior to the triggering action just like other purely defensive reactions.Even if readied actions can't be made to interrupt spells, it makes absolutely 0 sense that AoOs don't interrupt standard or even swift cast spells. No matter how you interpret the rules, you can't prevent them both from interrupting spell casts.
Oh no, the quote has an error where the dev conflated AoO's with reactions and readied actions in general. How terrible.
It's because AoO's and other reactions are very similar to readied actions in how their trigger works. Admittedly, that specific quote is a bit wonky, but the CRB's quotes are far better. AoO's should interrupt.
I'll quote the CRB:
If your readied action is purely defensive, such as choosing the total defense action if a foe you are facing shoots at you, it occurs just before the event that triggered it. If the readied action is not a purely defensive action, such as shooting a foe if he shoots at you, ite takes place immediately after the triggering event.
Unless their descriptions state otherwise, purely defensive reactions interrupt the triggering action: resolve the reaction first, then continue resolving the triggering action. Otherwise resolve the reaction immediately after the triggering action.
Really similar terminology.
An attack of opportunity is a special melee attack you can make against a target you threaten (usually an adjacent opponent), even if it is not your turn. See Reach and Threatened Squares on page 255 for more details on threatening. You can use your reaction to make an attack of opportunity against an opponent in any of these three cases.
-When you threaten a space and the opponent moves or is moved out of that space in any way other than a guarded step (see page 247) or withdraw action (see above), you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against the opponent.
-When the opponent in a space you threaten makes a ranged attack, you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against the opponent.
-When the opponent in a space you threaten casts a spell or uses a spell-like ability, you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against the opponent. However, some spells or spell-like abilities state in their descriptions that they don’t provoke attacks of opportunity, so be sure to confirm that the enemy has provoked your reaction before you take it.Attacks of opportunity are always resolved before the action that triggers them. You don’t take a penalty to the attack roll when making an attack of opportunity in the same round you took a full attack, but you do take any other attack penalties that would normally apply to your attacks. Making an attack of opportunity does not affect your ability to make attacks normally when it is your turn.
(bolded for emphasis)
The CRB itself states that non-defensive reactions and readied actions (unless otherwise stated, see AoO) happen after the triggering event has been completed.
"Begin to cast" is a valid trigger for a readied action to interrupt spells according to the text of the rulebook.
It isn't. 'Begins to cast' is not a part of the rules. 'Begins to cast' is not defined by the rules, and does not exist according to the rules. There are no discrete subactions defined in the CRB or elsewhere. There is no rules difference between a player saying 'I shoot them when they begin to cast a spell' and a player saying 'I shoot when they cast a spell'. Both readied actions happen after the swift, move, standard, or full action that the casting a spell action requires.
It is relevant. You can say "yer yeller" during a charge before the attack lands. The trigger is "yer yeller" being said and therefore the readied action resolves after the saying as per the rules but before the attack.
No, saying 'yer yeller' would be combat banter and would happen before or after the charge. Any readied actions would resolve according to when you took the combat banter free action, not the charge action.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The book tells you that you can interrupt a spell with a readied action with the trigger being "begin to cast."
The book also makes that impossible by having an offensive readied action go after the triggering event.
So we asked the people who wrote it what's going on. Those two sentences seem at odds with each other.
Yes. Its was possible the apparent contradiction was resolved by the spell having a begin that could be reacted to seperate from the spell. It was possible one passage was wrong. The other passage could be wrong.
But they weren't. One passage was left in in a revision as a mistake.
I do not get this idea at all that the rules are somehow platonically descended from heaven. They're not. They're written for and mostly by human beings writing, re writing, copy pasting, and editing words and ideas that are constantly being tweaked up until the last minute when it goes to print. Why is an error in that process so inconceivable that we can't accept peoples word on it, and instead MUST conclude something to make all of the rules error free. It just gets you further and further from both the raw and the rai
It's like trying to cover up Hans line about having a fast ship making the Kestle run in parsecs (a unit of distance). Instead of just acceping the error (which could definitely be on a less than truthful characters part) you somehow try to make it true and then things get really really weird.
It is relevant. You can say "yer yeller" during a charge before the attack lands. The trigger is "yer yeller" being said and therefore the readied action resolves after the saying as per the rules but before the attack.
Creating a difference between your interpretation and mine does not show that my interpretation is in error
Creating a difference between your interpretation and mine DEFINITELY does not show an inconsistency in my interpretation.
Your complaint that I'm equivocating between the game definition of an action with the plain english definition of action is irrelevant for spellcasting. For spellcasting a standard action spell they're irrelevant.
Have you looked at the heavy armors? Heavy armor doesn't prevent spellcasting.
1) You're assuming someone spending a feat on heavy armor, which becomes a necessity under your interpretation, instead of feats they'd like to use to differentiate their character
2) You simply cannot keep your armor on your level every level. (unless you're doing a WBL reset wealth system, as opposed to murdermart where you find most of your loot or cash and carry where people have income and buy what they want) In starfinder your relevant wealth is dependent on NOT burning through your income too quickly.
What this means is that your assertion that it's easy to be very missable requires not only a cherry picked character build, but even that build needs to be cherry picked snapshot in time.
Really? The the core rulebook says you are:
Spells that deal damage, spells that opponents can resist with saving throws (and that are not harmless), and spells that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks.
No. It doesn't.
Many common spell effects are described in Defining Effects beginning on page 268.
Attacks
Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don’t damage opponents, are considered attacks. Anytime you would need to make an attack roll to determine whether your spell hits a target, you are considered to be making an attack.
Even an effect that is inoffensive or beneficial to some affected creatures still counts as an attack if it would be considered offensive to any affected creature. Spells that deal damage, spells that opponents can resist with saving throws (and that are not harmless), and spells that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks.
This is defining attacks for spells. NOT the entire game. You cannot full "attack" by taking a -4 to cast explosive blast twice. You can't use get em and toss an explosive blast. Is it annoying that the game uses two meanings for one word? Yes. But they work under some of the same rules. Not all of them though. Context is a thing. This is describing what an attack is according to spells that use language like 'attacking ends the effects of invisibility' or sanctuary or gets a confused person to start attacking you.
The book tells you that you can interrupt a spell with a readied action with the trigger being "begin to cast." The book tells you that an AoO interrupts a spell cast. Explicitly and without question. There is no errata. There is no faq. There can be no evidence more blatant.
More blatant evidence would be something along the lines of "the phases of spellcasting" with a discription of what order they happen in, what they look like and what the caster is doing.
It would be kind of pointless to shoot someone to stop them from casting if your trigger was finished casting. That someone starts to cast and in no way proves that your reaction can slip in between the events. In pathfinder a readied action was resolved before the attack whether it was to whack someone in the face or go prone to dodge incomming arrows. In starfinder offenseive and defensive readied actions work differently.
Mind you, that isn't a bad interpretation to reconcile the two disparate statements. But it is in no way shape or form the rule. A "implies" be in plain english works. Its your conclusion. It's a VERY reasonable conclusion. But still not the rule.
A "implies" B in a logical sense does not apply. A MUST mean B only holds in a perfectly coherent, logical system. In a perfectly logical system if your premises are true and your conclusions are logical than your conclusions must be true.
The starfinder rules as described in english are not that kind of system. I don't think english can create that kind of system.