This seems like it can either add a huge amount of interesting depth to the use of some Trans abilities, or it could be disruptively overpowered, depending on one's perspective lol.
The first 2 Trans abilities that jump to mind are the Marathon Dash, which allows you to Stride, along w/ granting an optional Stride Reaction to all allies in 10ft. That is pretty crazy when put into a Reaction.
.
The other one at a glance that's similar is the "get over here" yoink from the Bangles. If you spend an extra action to Ready it, then you can steal extra foe actions by waiting for them to move/act first.
.
.
A separate rule question about Ready itself. The example case seems... a bit too good / powerful.
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 forty-seven 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.
This makes it seem like one could Ready the Bangle's yoink with something like "a foe tries to melee swing at one of my allies" which is appropriately visible, but seems to allow one to disrupt the triggering action by rendering it impossible (assuming the foe fails the Bangle save). Is there some catch I'm not seeing about that? Or perhaps there is a common houserule, such as refunding the triggering action, or perhaps a houserule that all Readied actions must happen after their trigger?
.
Ready or not, my on-the-shelf "never die distraction" Exemplar is for sure swapping to Bangles, as single-save forced movement looks better the longer I think on it.
Personally, the group I play with took the general rule from Starfinder first edition that purely defensive triggered/readied actions happen before the trigger, and offensive triggered/readied happen after. It removes these kinds of issues and makes things simpler.
However, the base rules do seem to allow for you to set of trigger of "when they attack an ally" and use the action to move the enemy away from your ally.
Edit: There is some question whether or not the trigger would need to be "moves next to ally" or "attempts to attack ally" as the rules that I can find on readied actions are pretty silent on whether or not they can "interrupt" but you can achieve very similar results by changing the trigger.
It is an open question that is based on the game term confusion/collision between 'Action: a unit of action economy that you get three of each round' and 'Action: a simple effect that you can create such as Stride and Strike that is used as a building block for more complex "Activities"'.
Ready says that you can prepare to use a 'single action or free action'.
Ready also gives no examples.
A similar action is Act Together from the Summoner class. It also lets one of the two characters use 'a single action'. The other of the two gets to use 'an action or activity using the same number of actions as Act Together'.
Act Together does give examples. Both of which have the single action character using the simple actions of Stride in one example and Strike in the other.
So on one side of the debate, these rules don't really say that you can't use single action Activities. At least not clearly enough to be used as proof of RAW. It is a reasonable interpretation of what is written to say that the actions will allow using any action that you have available that only costs one action to use.
On the other side of the debate, people are pointing out various balance problems that this may create. The historical one is Flurry of Blows with the Stunning Blows upgrade so that you can give an enemy the Stunned 1 condition during their turn as soon as they approach you to attack.
Currently there is no resolution to this. It is up to the GM at each table to decide which side of the debate they find more compelling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the rules that I can find on readied actions are pretty silent on whether or not they can "interrupt"
The rules actually aren't silent on the matter.
There is a defined game term of Disrupt that is used for all reactions that can cause the target to lose the actions spent and have the effect of those actions not take place.
Ready does not say that it can Disrupt actions.
So if the trigger is 'an enemy starts an attack' then the Ready reaction cannot Disrupt the attack that has already started.
Both the Strike that the enemy is making and the Readied Stride that the ally is using are events that are happening at the same time. And the rules for Limitations on Triggers mentions that if things are happening at the same time, the GM can determine the order that they happen in.
So in the case of a Readied Stride to move away from an enemy after they start an attack, having the Stride take effect first and then causing the Strike to be used to no effect is an incorrect ruling. It is causing Ready to Disrupt the Strike action when it does not have that ability.
The quoted text mentioning observable triggers is from the GMCore, and is more guidelines to adjudicate an action.
I'm not finding it to be a convincing argument to ignore clear rules because the heading that those rules are printed under is not quite exactly what you would expect.
If multiple actions would be occurring at the same time, and it's unclear in what order they happen, the GM determines the order based on the narrative.
the rules that I can find on readied actions are pretty silent on whether or not they can "interrupt"The rules actually aren't silent on the matter.
There is a defined game term of Disrupt that is used for all reactions that can cause the target to lose the actions spent and have the effect of those actions not take place.
Ready does not say that it can Disrupt actions.
So if the trigger is 'an enemy starts an attack' then the Ready reaction cannot Disrupt the attack that has already started.
Both the Strike that the enemy is making and the Readied Stride that the ally is using are events that are happening at the same time. And the rules for Limitations on Triggers mentions that if things are happening at the same time, the GM can determine the order that they happen in.
So in the case of a Readied Stride to move away from an enemy after they start an attack, having the Stride take effect first and then causing the Strike to be used to no effect is an incorrect ruling. It is causing Ready to Disrupt the Strike action when it does not have that ability.
That's a very reasonable way to interpret it, but the problem is needing to know and agree the disrupt trait exist and agreeing that something (like a readied action) lacking that trait or mention in it's description means that it can be used to disrupt. And then you also have the problem of a player trying to come up with a trigger that is different enough to achieve the same result.
If you use a trigger of an enemy ending their movement in melee range of an ally, you can't force them to "waste" their attack action, but you could force them to need to spend another action to move or have no available target. However, this example is probably intended usage.
Disrupting Actions
Source Player Core pg. 415 2.0Various abilities and conditions, such as a Reactive Strike, 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 to Cast a Spell requiring 3 actions and the first action was disrupted, you lose all 3 actions that you committed to that activity.
The GM decides what effects a disruption causes beyond simply negating the effects that would have occurred from the disrupted action. For instance, a Leap disrupted midway wouldn't transport you back to the start of your jump, and a disrupted item hand off might cause the item to fall to the ground instead of staying in the hand of the creature who was trying to give it away.
The issue is that I'm not attempting to invoke the "disrupt ___" effect directly a la Reactive Strike, but indirectly via ineligibility. I'm looking to see textually the order of events.
And this text you've added to the discussion honestly seems to further support the idea presented in the OP.
If a PC attempts to Strike a "Windbag monster", and a "Gust" Reaction occurs to push them out of reach; all the rules around Actions & Reactions indicate they already spent the action to start the Strike, but because they can't complete it, they loose that action.
That notion would apply equally to Bangles (and Shove).
The only way I can see to disallow that emergent mechanic is by having a houserule that simply outright states that all Ready actions only happen after their trigger action completes. (Which is a required addition because Reactions do not normally have that limitation, and there seems to be 0 text to indicate that Ready is any different.)
.
The rules explicitly talk about disrupting a spell. The only way that's possible is if Reaction Triggers happen before the action that triggered them.
If you set a Ready reposition action to trigger via Cast a Spell, and you succeed at yoinking said foe out of spell range from their target, I can see no other RaW way to rule that as the spell being disrupted.
As a hypothetical, if someone could apply a mute effect to a spellcaster via a Reaction w/ a "cast a spell" trigger, even without a "disrupt" clause, I can see no other way to rule the result besides "effective disruption."
.
As far as I can tell, that's intended to be the extra reward that is fitting for the increased cost of paying double the actions immediately, while delaying the payoff of the effect; all while there's no guarantee the trigger will occur nor successfully render the trigger invalid.
It seems 100% RaW & RaI that this Bangles action could yoink foes to no longer be eligible to perform their triggering action. It's just an overlooked detail (and may have been overlooked by the designers) that some players may find "too good."
.
Thinking a bit more on the Shove comparison, it may be that I'm overestimating Bangles a bit.
It is a serious build cost to take Bangles, and the main difference over setting up Ready Shoves for the same trigger is that this is a foe-side Will save w/out the attack trait, and rather importantly, it puts you into the danger zone via pulling foes to you. Moreover, this spends the PC's single Reaction per turn, and Exemplar is a Reactive Strike class.
A Readied Bangles "yoink" would be character-defining ability to be sure, but not necessarily more powerful than something like Gleaming Blade, Victor's Wreath, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ineligibility doesn't make sense, because if they're unable to take the action, then they can't... take the action.
Either the creature has spent an action on a strike, in which case of course they'd make the strike because that's what they're doing, or they haven't and they don't 'lose' an action because they haven't spent it yet.
Trying to argue the action should both happen in response to a trigger yet also pre-empt that trigger doesn't really make sense and isn't supported by anything either.
Disrupt is a specific mechanic operating in its own rules space, and trying to extrapolate anything general from it is a mistake.
Either they Strike or they don't.
Disrupting is a specific mechanic, I think trying to more broadly apply that to other features is a mistake.
Either the creature has spent an action on a strike, in which case of course they'd make the strike because that's what they're doing, or they haven't and they don't 'lose' an action because they haven't spent it yet.
Ineligibility doesn't make sense, because if they're unable to take the action, then they can't... take the action.
Trying to argue the action should both happen in response to a trigger yet also pre-empt that trigger feels like trying to have your cake and eat it too, and isn't really supported by anything.
Either they Strike or they don't.
IMO, the rules are clearly talking about action disruption as a general concept.
The GM decides what effects a disruption causes beyond simply negating the effects that would have occurred from the disrupted action.
For instance, a Leap disrupted midway wouldn't transport you back to the start of your jump, and a disrupted item hand off might cause the item to fall to the ground instead of staying in the hand of the creature who was trying to give it away.
So while a GM could say that a yoink-interrupted Draconic Frenzy would result in the previously out of range Bangle-user getting attacked in that flurry instead of their allies, all textual evidence seems to say that it is completely normal for Reactions and other effects to be able to "waste" the action that triggered them.
.
I absolutely think a good GM with balance concerns might rule the "Yoink upon foe swing" results in the action cost of the disrupted swing being refunded, but that the foe progresses MAP, or some other similar custom outcome.
That would preserve the normal rules around Reactions & triggers while reaching a "half" type result similar to the disrupted Leap example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two issues.
First, "GM decides" means that your position that a certain outcome is definitely RAW is incorrect, because the RAW is that anything can happen depending on how the GM is feeling.
Second and more importantly, you posted rules about disrupted actions. Bangles don't disrupt actions. So that doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand.
I absolutely think a good GM with balance concerns might rule the "Yoink upon foe swing" results in the action cost of the disrupted swing being refunded, but that the foe progresses MAP, or some other similar custom outcome.
Maybe, but to be clear I'm not talking about any potential balance concerns here (given the investment, the combo seems kind of whatever to me).
I'm talking about the rules, which have nothing in them to support your conclusions, much less make them obvious or forgone conclusions as you've implied.
Okay.
However you construct this hypothetical, what is the result when a Reaction renders the trigger invalid for completion? Not talking about the specific disrupt clause of RS.
There are more than enough examples of Reactions that happen before their trigger to say that it is normal / valid for Reactions to do that.
Every example I've seen says that the triggering action still happens, and there is no example I've found where the triggering action "does not happen" and is fully refunded as if nothing occurred.
.
If a Reaction teleportation/other effect occurs that removes the target from valid range of the triggering action, how do you adjudicate the result?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ineligibility doesn't make sense, because if they're unable to take the action, then they can't... take the action.Either the creature has spent an action on a strike, in which case of course they'd make the strike because that's what they're doing, or they haven't and they don't 'lose' an action because they haven't spent it yet.
Trying to argue the action should both happen in response to a trigger yet also pre-empt that trigger doesn't really make sense and isn't supported by anything either.
Disrupt is a specific mechanic operating in its own rules space, and trying to extrapolate anything general from it is a mistake.
Either they Strike or they don't.
Yeah, it's a logical problem that existed in PF1 and was never sufficiently resolved.
It's why I mentioned my group just imports the rule from Starfinder that precludes this issue from happening. Readying to do something from an attack is generally not going to be helpful if you goal is to make the attack not happen. If you want to use a defensive action that increase your AC or something like that then you're going to be alright, but this scenario simply isn't possible with our clarification/houserule. No paradoxes! You can't have an attack start to trigger a readied action, but be unable to complete the attack.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is no different than old questions about readying to Stride away. And they all come down to the same answer, that the idea of accepting "an action starts and is spent but hasn't resolved and done anything yet because I said 'they begin to X'" as a valid trigger is nonsense that no one should ever entertain.
So... in your example, you saw them cast the spell, you jumped in reaction to that, and then also jumped before they cast the spell?
That hypothetical contradicts itself.
Presumably he would prefer a trigger with wording like "begins to," which removes the ambiguity around exactly when the trigger would fire (though technically his wording is fine, as things like Reactive Strike only say "a creature uses" etc).
The point is that yes, Reactions are allowed to happen before the trigger occurs / finishes.
This is no different than old questions about readying to Stride away. And they all come down to the same answer, that the idea of accepting "an action starts and is spent but hasn't resolved and done anything yet because I said 'they begin to X'" as a valid trigger is nonsense that no one should ever entertain.
Well that gives me something that's searchable.
...[quick 10 min dive]...
While a whole lot of people seem to find no issue with interruption --> lost actions, it's hard to guess how many people take each pro / con side for a niche issue like this one.
It seems a common tool used for the "nay" side is to distinguish between actions being |disrupted| via things like RS, and actions being |interrupted| by other Reactions, including Readied Stride.
And while I cannot believe this is actually the case, but the paragraph of text was actually changed a little in the Remaster, and no longer separates /distinguishes between these 2 means of interruption.
[...] 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. Activities are described[...]
If an activity gets interrupted or disrupted in an encounter (page 462), you lose all the actions you committed to it.
.
At minimum, this does mean RaW that the "Leap away via Reaction" or any other interruption of things like Cast a Spell to waste all those foe actions is 100% directly stated as the outcome. There is absolutely no honest way to claim that it's cheating to Reaction-Leap out of range and burn their spell.
.
I completely understand the temptation to use the tiniest remaining loophole of "but it said activities loose all their actions, and left what happens to interrupted actions blank" as a reason to make up a different outcome for interrupted actions, but let's be honest here, that's a post-hoc ass-pull done out of game balance fears.
.
If the RaW is bad, then the healthy approach is to fix that "real" RaW instead of making half-and-half loopholes where you can Leap out of spells because they are activities, but not out of Strikes.
If it's an issue, then homebrew an extra rule that the table can agree upon, like Ready specifically only being able to go after triggers if it's that scary to the GM, or some more nuanced rule like "interrupted actions are gone, but resources and effects are not wasted (no burned spell, no MAP progression)."
Good find on that Movement in Combat quote, that's pretty damn rock-solid that about 3 times over now, yes, Reactions can happen before the triggering action.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
However you construct this hypothetical, what is the result when a Reaction renders the trigger invalid for completion? Not talking about the specific disrupt clause of RS.
I mean there are only two outcomes that make sense here.
Either the reaction entirely pre-empts the trigger, in which case no action is taken.
Or it doesn't and the action happens normally.
There's no prescribed system for having a Readied action both happen after a trigger but also before it at the same time. It's just something you've kind of made up.
If the RaW is bad
The RAW is fine. It's just that nothing you've been talking about is RAW.
To be clear, despite your weird straw manning. It's not an "actions vs activities" issue and it's not about people being "scared" ... it's just a rules issue. So far you haven't really shown anything to support the interaction you want to happen. That's all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, personally the best way to play (in my opinion) is simply to state that unless an ability explicitly specifies that it can disrupt, that you cannot separate the start of an action (for example setting a trigger of "starts to attack") from the resolution of the action.
From a GM and player perspective it's the more fun way to play.
Players are always looking at this issue from the standpoint of "oh, I love interrupting the enemy this way".
But I taught my group a lesson around this topic, which is how we settled on our house rule.
Run a combat with several enemies that are 1 level below the party and have them all readying actions to interrupt all typical things they do. Part way through the extremely frustrating combat, the players realize the point and agreed that it was frustrating for them to deal with and understood it was frustrating for a GM to deal with as well.
I will have to disagree with the ruling, its not RAW, RAI and I feel like it detracts one of my favorite parts about the Ready action.
You are free to disagree with me.
I will admit your interpretation is more likely supported by the rules, to the detriment of the game in my opinion. It's one of the worst parts of the rules in my opinion. Something they got right in Starfinder, and forgot the lesson in PF2.
Either the reaction entirely pre-empts the trigger, in which case no action is taken.
Or it doesn't and the action happens normally.
There's no prescribed system for having a Readied action both happen after a trigger but also before it at the same time. It's just something you've kind of made up.
Dude.
How else can you read that "if interrupted partway through, you lose all of the actions you would have spent"
That spells out in plain text that interruption is possible / normal. One can pay for and commit, but a Reaction is able to interrupt and render the intended actions impossible.
When that happens, you do not get the actions refunded, and you fail to complete the action / "fail to land the intended effect."
.
Your stance is completely incompatible with the rules. Reactions commonly happen before the triggering action; even something as mundane as Reactive Shield breaks your stance in half.
The entire premise of Reactions are things that happen during the foe's actions; some do happen after their trigger is resolved, but many Reactions happen between the start of the trigger and when it's action would land.
Because we know you commit the actions and costs of things like Cast a Spell up front, and that the spell only finishes casting at the end of the whole activity, I honestly do not understand how you are insisting that interruptions like reactive teleporting/etc, are impossible.
.
There's no prescribed system for having a Readied action both happen after a trigger but also before it at the same time. It's just something you've kind of made up.
That's... literally what the text of the Reaction is for, especially its trigger. The base concept of Reactions allows for things to happen both before and after, so you read the ability to see when the Reaction happens.
.
Hence, the idea to homebrew change Ready to add a clause that sets limitations on when it can happen.
Because otherwise that's just left to the player, who can elect to set a before-effect trigger timing.
.
.
Back to the OP, it's good to get confirmation that's there no restriction nor clause around eikons & Transcendence hiding somewhere that prevents it from being performed inside other activities, or from happening outside a turn, etc.
And it's a good reminder that you use the p turn limitations of the turn you sacrifice for the Ready.
I will have to disagree with the ruling, its not RAW, RAI and I feel like it detracts one of my favorite parts about the Ready action.You are free to disagree with me.
I will admit your interpretation is more likely supported by the rules, to the detriment of the game in my opinion. It's one of the worst parts of the rules in my opinion. Something they got right in Starfinder, and forgot the lesson in PF2.
Except that Starfinder also allows you to use Guarded Step with Ready an Action, is that not considered defensive and would happen before a melee strike that trigger them? Or is that rule you mention from another source?
Otherwise.. yeah, "fun" is subjective and your table is not my table.
Starfinder rules say:
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. If you come to your next turn and have not yet performed your readied action, you don’t get to take the readied action (though you can ready the same action again).The example given of a purely defensive action is total defense. My group's evaluation of things we decided that readying to move didn't qualify as a "purely defensive action".
To clarify though, we do allow Reactions to interrupt if that is the intended point of the reaction, akin to the Rogue's Reactive Distraction.
|
Either the reaction entirely pre-empts the trigger, in which case no action is taken.
Or it doesn't and the action happens normally.
There's no prescribed system for having a Readied action both happen after a trigger but also before it at the same time. It's just something you've kind of made up.
Dude.
How else can you read that "if interrupted partway through, you lose all of the actions you would have spent"
"If interrupted partway through" does not cause things to interrupt partway through, it tells you what happens when they do.
If. You gotta do the thing, first. If it happens, then the next part also happens. That is what "if" means.
Say if you're reacting to one part of an activity with multiple parts, the resolution of the reaction may make the later parts impossible. If that happens, the actions are still spent.
The "if" has gotta happen first. That's... the only way to read it. It's not really ambiguous.
"Start to" isn't a cheat code. This isn't a computer game, there aren't any cheat codes.
It proves that it is possible, and Squiggit claimed it was impossible.
Even a normal R3 spell like Wooden Double can cause this to happen for any form of single-target multi hit. As soon as the first crit lands, you get to Step. If that movement interrupts an activity that was intended to follow up with other actions, like Grab attempts (or Double Slice), those are all interrupted. And any more actions committed up front are lost.
I've got no clue why this sounds like a "cheat code" when it's plain text.
You can just copy the trigger phrases of L1 feats like Nimble Dodge to get RaW valid triggers that unambiguously happen after the foe commits, and before the hostility would land.
2A + Reaction is a very real opportunity cost, as much as casting a spell & performing a Reactive Strike. Trying to come up with useful Ready actions honestly looks like a great way to keep every PC involved, even when they might be out of spells / vials / etc. As long as it's properly mirrored for both opposing sides, I think I'd have more fun at a table that started getting creative with Ready. Though I'd be fine w/ a houserule nerf as well.
Triggers for printed reactions that occur before the effects of actions they're reacting to (such as Nimble Dodge's and Reactive Strike's triggers, or any spell or other printed reaction) can not be copied and used for Ready because 1. the trigger needs to be observable by the character in the game world instead of exist purely as a rules concept as explained on GMC p.27 under Ready,
Yes, the same applies to all Reactions like Nimble Dodge or Reactive Shield. I've taken personal umbridge with player actions/reactions that require secret knowledge before and called them "invalid" or "errors" for this reason.
There is no conflict with this detail and Ready. If the trigger is valid for Nimble Dodge then it's valid for Ready.
The core issue is that pf2 puts 0 extra restraints on Ready compared to other Reactions, it's just "build your own trigger and 1A Reaction." There is 0 textual reason to say Ready can only use certain types of triggers, can only land after the triggering action, etc.
That text does not exist.
.
and 2. once something observable HAS occurred, the action has already been begun and thus cannot be interrupted.
No. The text says the exact opposite.
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.
The rules explicitly explain that Reactions and other things can happen just after a creature begins their action and commits the resources to it. That commitment is what triggers the reaction, not the completion of it.
That is why being observable is required, else you cannot trigger it.
And as the rules explicitly state, if something happens between the commitment and the completion to interrupt that, all the (remaining) actions are lost and spent, even when there's 0 effect.
This isn't nonsense rules lawyering.
If a PC triggered Wooden Double after the first Double Slice hit was a crit, but the GM refused to let them step out of range of the 2nd swing, I would take serious issue with that ruling.
.
My guess is that problem is that you don't like that Ready is a rather blank check, and while I can understand that balance worry, it's not right to pretend to ignore/misread the RaW on all of Reactions as a concept.
Actions with the move trait can trigger reactions or free actions throughout the course of the distance traveled. Each time you exit a square within a creature's reach, your movement triggers those reactions and free actions (although no more than once per move action for a given reacting creature). If you use a move action but don't move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability.
The default is that Reactions trigger before the completion of the action, not after. This is why they made the edge case that if you don't leave your square, a Reaction is too slow and unable to land before you complete your move action, so that you can Stand Up even if it would normally be disrupted.
That only matter because normally, Reactions hit happens before the triggering action completes, but for cases like Stand Up, that original action completes faster than the Reaction can land.
Which unambiguously proves that it's completely normal for Reactions to take effect between the commitment and the end.
Meaning anything that prevents the action from being valid, like Wooden Double's step, does indeed interrupt and can burn actions.
.
And again, there's plenty of hombrew and houserule restrains one could add to Ready, but the RaW is solid.