Would it be terribly broken to have a high-level general feat that allowed a character to Ready a two-action activity instead of a single action?
If not, what level should it be? 10? 16?
What are some potential unforseen complications that could arise from introducing such a feat?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, let me just Ready paralyze or any other hard CC spell so that I can completely banjax a powerful enemy's turn, and to much more disruptive effect than if I'd Cast the Spell on my own turn. That, I suspect, is the main reason why Ready is limited to single actions.
There are so many important abilities that are gated behind two actions, and you tend to get more of them the higher level you are, which makes Ready grow less and less compelling as you level up. You also get more reactions too, which is another opportunity cost. I am therefore interested in this line of thought.
The biggest issue I can see is opening up the majority of spells, and allowing them to occur in the middle of an enemy's turn. Like, some kind of wall spell *after* they've already moved, boxing them in somewhere without actions to get out, wasting their whole turn instead of 1 or 2 actions. Or perhaps seeing that a flying target has used two non-fly actions, then you cast something to rob them of their last action so they fall.
However, I struggle to come up with scenarios that are truly broken. Especially if you used 3 Actions to ready a 2 action activity, to pay off the action economy tax man.
There are so many important abilities that are gated behind two actions, and you tend to get more of them the higher level you are, which makes Ready grow less and less compelling as you level up. You also get more reactions too, which is another opportunity cost. I am therefore interested in this line of thought.
The biggest issue I can see is opening up the majority of spells, and allowing them to occur in the middle of an enemy's turn. Like, some kind of wall spell *after* they've already moved, boxing them in somewhere without actions to get out, wasting their whole turn instead of 1 or 2 actions. Or perhaps seeing that a flying target has used two non-fly actions, then you cast something to rob them of their last action so they fall.
However, I struggle to come up with scenarios that are truly broken. Especially if you used 3 Actions to ready a 2 action activity, to pay off the action economy tax man.
Interesting. How would you describe the trigger though? I very much doubt "move twice" is a valid trigger since consecutive actions are seen to the characters as generally being continuous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He said non-fly actions, not move twice, so easier to discern though difficult to phrase as a trigger given the endless variety. But if the actions are predictable, like casting or breathing fire, you could auto-add a fall to your effect on the flyer (if you succeed at stealing an action that is).
Two-action Ready would also unleash a lot of martial attacks, must notably IMO Slam Down (Knockdown). Two-action actions represent the bulk of a character's efforts for the round, and as noted by others, being able to use an already disruptive ability mid-turn amplifies the disruption. Such a feat would become a must-have for too many builds to justify it, and unlock an unreasonable amount of unforeseen combos (especially if PCs coordinate). If playing to high levels, some types of players would even build around later taking this feat. They're common around here.
So at my tables, yes, it'd be terribly broken, especially as a general feat, and given your shenanigans I imagine you know this already.
2A for 2A would be too disruptive, I do agree there.
I am curious about 3A for 2A though.
I think in general, Ready gets massively over-estimated due to it requiring the spend of the actions without any guarantee up front, while having 0 certainty that the Trigger will even happen. Plus, the single Reaction is a rather valuable commodity.
I think perhaps an additional change where all forms of Ready telegraph some hint would make it fun to try the 3A for 2A Ready thing. It would really change combat into a more "choose to be proactive or reactive" ethos that values foresight more (and lessens the unga-bunga damage race of the current game).
.
Makes me think a bit of Bravely Default. At the elevator pitch, the mechanical quirk of the game to pass/bank turns doing nothing to then spend them all at once sounds impossible to balance at a glance, but it works out.
.
So if a foe turn starts, and instead of casting right then, you get a hint like: "their staff shimmers with preparatory magics, and their attention focuses upon their allied Rogue"
That kind of ambiguity can be a *ton* of fun imo. It stuffs combat with a lot of little optional puzzles.
.
It also kinda helps a rather under-emphasized balance problem of many classes just having completely crap Reaction options, while others get evergreen ones to be used every turn. Needing to Arch dip for Reactions is a pretty big black eye on pf2e in general, imo. It makes it so that it's pretty unarguably "sub optimal" to play many classes pure.
The new form of Ready would generally help martials much less than other classes btw, as they are the poster children for having those evergreen Reaction options, which all would compete w/ the 1 p turn Reaction of Ready.
2A for 2A would be too disruptive, I do agree there.
I am curious about 3A for 2A though.
I love this idea!
I had almost made it there in the back of my mind, but didn't quite know how to put it together.
To expand / stew the brew a bit more:
Not a feat, imo it's important that the 3A for 2A would be a universal mechanic for mirroring purposes.
Though, feats may interact with or enhance it. Feats would have the power/flavor/utility roughly of something like:
You have learned to coordinate and accommodate unexpected shouts from your allies. Whenever you Ready an action or activity, you gain the additional trigger of your allies signalling with a basic "Now!" as a free action performed as they begin one of their actions. You need to be able to perceive the signal, typically a verbal or manipulate. When done, you first commit your Reaction, then the triggering ally action resolves, then your Reaction begins to take effect.
Remember that only a small amount of free action speech during one's turn is possible in an encounter, and remember to pre-determine a default shared language, as some foes may be able to understand your words.
Special: If you have telepathic or similar communication, you automatically communicate the gist of your Readied action(s) when you first spend those actions.
.
As far as the telegraph thing goes, I'd anchor it a bit more with some amount of non-ambiguous mechanic; imo it's important to anchor such ambiguous puzzles with something concrete like that. To put it into ~finalized text:
... any observer with a precise sense will always be able to notice and understand the involvement of all of these basic features contained in the Readied action(s). Move, attack, and non-subtle spellcasting or similar magics. An example like Skirmish Strike would telegraph both attack and movement. The spell Ignition, or an Elemental Blast, would telegraph both magic and attack.
Additionally, the general direction and location of any triggers can also be perceived as one's focus or attention, with room for GM discretion. It may be appropriate for foe with a vendetta to quite obviously ready an attack against one particular PC target. Other times, a foe may be more guarded and vague with their intentions.
As general guidance however, a spellcaster waiting for a foe to enter within range will look noticeably different from one waiting to incapacitate a victim right when the allied Rogue begins their approach.
2A for 2A would be too disruptive, I do agree there.
I am curious about 3A for 2A though.
I love this idea!
I had almost made it there in the back of my mind, but didn't quite know how to put it together.
You thought it'd be two action for two actions?!
That's so obviously broken it's ridiculous.My criticism was at the cost of 3 for 2, with the loss of an action quite worth the tactical benefits, much less having zero cost.
You thought it'd be two action for two actions?!2A for 2A would be too disruptive, I do agree there.
I am curious about 3A for 2A though.
I love this idea!
I had almost made it there in the back of my mind, but didn't quite know how to put it together.
As that didn't occur to me at all, I think it's safe to say that I hadn't thought it through even that far.
To be a little twisted for a second: Ready is normally double the action cost, not half again, for the funny things you can do with the nonspecific reaction it grants. You could maintain that general design by not only requiring that Ready be increased to three actions, but also having it impose Slowed 1 for a round after performing the readied activity. ¯\_('w')_/¯