Hi everyone,
I wonder how you'd handle such a situation:
A player performs a Finisher with their Swashbuckler and announce that they Ready the Dastardly Dash action.
Technically, the Ready action is valid as the character can perform a Dastardly Dash to perform a Dirty Trick but because they have made a Finisher, they can't make an attack and as such can't choose to Trip. But when the Ready action goes off the character can now choose to Trip as their turn is over and as such the limitation on Attacks.
It's obviously a way to circumvent the rules about Ready actions. But I wonder how you'd consider it as it seems to be valid per RAW?
RAW: Yes it's valid.
RAI: It's a try to workaround.
Balance: Well it will depend from the Ready trigger and will cost an 2-actions + reaction all will suffer from MAP and risks to trigger an enemy movement reaction. It's hard to consider this as a broken thing. IMO the current Finisher is already too restrictive so it's not like a MAP-4 Trip would be a significant move. There are many more stronger tactics in the game.
You mean that for you it's not a "strong tactic" to Ready a Dastardly Dash when an enemy moves, tripping them, disrupting their move action because of that and forcing them to lose a second action to stand up from prone, all of that while generating Panache and be able to perform your Finisher without penalty during your turn? Considering that with Agile Maneuvers, it's a Trip at -3 with a +1/2 circumstance bonus, someting that still has great chances to succeed.
Can I disagree with you?
Now you set a trigger. Yet it still just too expensive and circunstancial.
If you set the trigger to "an enemy start to move" what happens if no enemy moves or is far from half of your speed? Nothing you just lose your Ready actions. Anyway it's no different from Ready a Strike or any other actions with another class with an action that can disrupt another action and still up to the GM to decide at what point the disruption will happen.
The point is, Ready is good and can make many creative things and "break" some expected ways that somethings works but they are also expensive, needs a trigger and some GM adjudication.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
While acknowledging how underrated the power of Ready is (all PCs can Ready a Grab or other 1A immobilize to disrupt movement in the same way, no fancy Swash action needed),
I will echo YuriP's opinion that it's actually not an OP tactic in need of pre-banning.
In addition to the double action + Reaction cost, the "non-obvious" cost comes from the unreliability of the future. Maybe it makes sense for the GM to have the target do as predicted the first time, but there is zero guarantee for the pre-set Ready trigger to happen. As someone aware of Ready's power, I still have almost never used it because of this issue. The potential to completely waste 2A during a turn for a trigger that never happens is a *huge* disincentive.
IMO, it's very easy for us to be too concerned about balance, and pre-ban things without cause. So long as the GM & players understand that all ruling permissions have an asterisks* for future changes if needed, there's no reason to pre-ban something that has not yet caused issues.
"Once you use a finisher, you can't use actions that have the attack trait for the rest of your turn" PC p163. Their reaction is not on their turn, so I can't think of any rules reason they can't do this. Subject to the GMC caveat that Ready must have a trigger which is game-world observable. When an enemy moves yes. If an enemy takes a concentrate action no.
Better hope the enemy decides to do your trigger. If, in your example, the enemy doesn't take a move action, then the Swash has wasted two actions and a reaction to accomplish nothing.
Ok, well, it looks like I'm the only one to consider that strong.
It's true that I didn't consider the case where the Ready action never gets used and you actually are the one who lost 2 actions for nothing. So you'd better use it properly.
SuperBidi wrote: Ok, well, it looks like I'm the only one to consider that strong. It sounded to me like this was theoretical/future, and you haven't at this point had game sessions where the Swash did this and it turned out to be TGTBT. By all means come back with stories about how it plays/played out.
But also...as you know as a regular poster, in the rules forum you'll tend to get rules answers. If you were looking for someone to give feedback on how this played out in a game and whether a forum GM found it too powerful, maybe repost a "have you found this to be too strong" version of your question in the general category?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Easl wrote: If, in your example, the enemy doesn't take a move action, then the Swash has wasted two actions and a reaction to accomplish nothing. The Reaction technically hasn't been wasted. If you don't use the Reaction on the Readied action, then it is available for any other Reactions that you have.
Most likely you are going to hold on to the Reaction before the targeted enemy's turn - though you could choose to Nimble Dodge or Opportune Riposte if the opportunity comes up.
After the enemy's turn when they didn't move and therefore didn't trigger the Readied action, the Swashbuckler would still have their reaction and could use it on something else before their turn comes up.
-----
Most (but not all) balance concerns that involve Ready aren't actually problems. The benefits look really good in a casual comparison, but the cost of Ready is exorbitant.
It is hard to properly account for the cost of Ready to do a proper cost/benefit analysis.
Even if your readied action goes off nearly all effects require a roll so are still able to fail. If someone finds a good tactic with ready then after using it once most intelligent creatures could figure out how to outright prevent it's activation. So there's a lot of risk vs reward going on for these types of scenarios.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
If you decide to allow it, don't forget that Readying preserves the user's MAP
Easl wrote: It sounded to me like this was theoretical/future, and you haven't at this point had game sessions where the Swash did this and it turned out to be TGTBT. By all means come back with stories about how it plays/played out.
But also...as you know as a regular poster, in the rules forum you'll tend to get rules answers. If you were looking for someone to give feedback on how this played out in a game and whether a forum GM found it too powerful, maybe repost a "have you found this to be too strong" version of your question in the general category?
I got the kind of feedback I was expecting ;)
It's true that I missed the fact that you could lose 2 actions and as such the player has to properly forecast what'll happen, making it an advanced strategy. There are still lots of cases where you can be sure the enemy will move (like when you face melee brutes that are not at melee range of anyone). It's definitely not a technique to use always, still.
As a side note, I disagree with you about Concentrate actions being indiscernible. For free actions or reactions I agree that it's fast but for a regular action, having an enemy focusing on something for 2 seconds is definitely perceptible. There are reactions on Concentrate actions (like the Fighter Disruptive Stance) and as a general rule most traits should be easy to get.
SuperBidi wrote: As a side note, I disagree with you about Concentrate actions being indiscernible. For free actions or reactions I agree that it's fast but for a regular action, having an enemy focusing on something for 2 seconds is definitely perceptible. There are reactions on Concentrate actions (like the Fighter Disruptive Stance) and as a general rule most traits should be easy to get. I believe Easl is reffering to what GMCore says Adjudicating Actions, Ready wrote: 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. A concentrate actions obviously doesn't mean its indiscernable, but its not a valid trigger according to GMCore and needs to be more specific to the ingame world.
-Speaks
-creates magical manifestations
-tries to intimidate
-Looks towards an area
Are all valid triggers for actions with concentrate.
But so is "I shoot them the moment they look distracted with something they are doing" so it really isnt hard to cover most concentrate actions unless the GM is strict about it.
SuperBidi wrote: As a side note, I disagree with you about Concentrate actions being indiscernible. As Norr figured out, I literally took it from the GMC's example of what doesn't work.
I agree that many (most?) actions with the concentrate tag will be in-game discernable - I think what the GMC is trying to say is that you can't use "any action with the X trait" as your trigger - you have to specify the action not a general trait, since traits are rules concepts and that would be quite meta.
So for example, the way I read it the GMC guidance allows "I ready my Dastardly Dash to trigger if my opponent casts a spell" even though spells typically have the concentrate trait, but the guidance is trying to steer GMs away from allowing "I ready my Dastardly Dash to trigger if my opponent does any action which has the Concentrate trait."
I wasn't aware of that piece of rule, I note it.
So it's not possible to Ready an action on a specific trait. It's a bit annoying as it makes complete sense to state that you "Ready an action if the enemy moves". Luckily, there's one main action to move, Stride, and the other one doesn't trigger reactions, Step. But it can be annoying if the enemy decides to Leap :D
SuperBidi wrote: it makes complete sense to state that you "Ready an action if the enemy moves". Yes it is. And that's why it works. It's an observable in-universe thing. So, valid for Ready. Probably doesn't include standing up though. And is still a bit abstract because not moving from your square doesn't actually mean you stand absolutely still.
Otherwise that it mostly coincides with the trait 'move' doesn't change anything.
SuperBidi wrote: So it's not possible to Ready an action on a specific trait. The trait Concentrate is used in the GMC as the 'negative' example, but the specific wording is: 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
If your GM thinks stride actions and leap actions can fit into the same observable "something" bucket, let's call it "a vernacular move," I could see readying an action against both as reasonable. But that's up to your table. There is wiggle room here as to what the GM counts as a singular 'thing' in 'something' and possibly even reasonable disagreement over what counts as 'observable by the character', so I think there's some table variation that could fit under the RAW.
A GM who demands the player pick Move or Leap, and then has the enemy do the one not picked, is not playing fair. OTOH a GM who allows "my ready action will trigger on anything with the 'move' trait" is also not playing fair: the concept of 'having the move trait' is a rules construct, it doesn't describe some observable the character can see. IMO a Ready that covers stride, leap, stand, tumble and every feat/impulse/spell that has the trait like Lightning Dash is not RAW. "I will react if they try to walk or jump away from me" to cover just those two obvious and mundane possibilities seems reasonably RAW to me.
Move might not work, but stand up or leave their square would. Because move could be seen as including waving or even swinging a weapon. As players I think we all know what we generally mean when we say move though, exit their square to get to another.
Interesting question, would step counter a movement focused ready trigger? Be real hard to make it function but still a potential option.
I mean... "if they move" is pretty much universal and observable thing but depends on how strict GM is.
If they stand, they are by definition moving into a standing position.
If they leap, they are by moving trough the air.
If they drop prone, they are moving closer to the ground.
OrochiFuror wrote: Interesting question, would step counter a movement focused ready trigger? Yes, Ready still follows the rules regarding triggers, You just designate an event of your own choosing as the trigger, But Stepping doesn't trigger reactions so any such event that comes from using Step doesn't satisfy the trigger.
NorrKnekten wrote: Stepping doesn't trigger reactions so any such event that comes from using Step doesn't satisfy the trigger. Step doesn't have immunity to all Reaction triggers.
It specifies which triggers it avoids.
Step wrote: Stepping doesn't trigger reactions, such as Reactive Strike, that can be triggered by move actions or upon leaving or entering a square. It only bypasses triggers that target Move actions, and triggers of entering or leaving a square.
If a Readied action trigger doesn't involve those things, then Step can still trigger it. And since both of those things listed are game mechanics (Move actions and squares), it would be an invalid trigger for Ready if Step bypasses the trigger.
That said, I will also say that I would interpret the rules to let Step not trigger Readied actions where the player-specified trigger involves moving.
Finoan wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: Stepping doesn't trigger reactions so any such event that comes from using Step doesn't satisfy the trigger. Step doesn't have immunity to all Reaction triggers.
It specifies which triggers it avoids.
Step wrote: Stepping doesn't trigger reactions, such as Reactive Strike, that can be triggered by move actions or upon leaving or entering a square. It only bypasses triggers that target Move actions, and triggers of entering or leaving a square.
If a Readied action trigger doesn't involve those things, then Step can still trigger it. And since both of those things listed are game mechanics (Move actions and squares), it would be an invalid trigger for Ready if Step bypasses the trigger. I feel like i have to ask but, What possible trigger could trigger of the Step if the trigger isn't based on movement? When step itself is only observable as the character moving.
... actually I did think of one but I dont think I would personally allow it because its just to broad and not a specific observation, "They do anything other than attacking"
"I attack them if they move" is natural language and only relies on your perception of them moving, it does not care about stride, step or jump.
Standing up could also count, just clarify it.
A GM and their players are usually not caught in a "gotcha"-contest of tricking eachother with semantics.
Dr. Frank Funkelstein wrote: "I attack them if they move" is natural language and only relies on your perception of them moving, it does not care about stride, step or jump.
Standing up could also count, just clarify it.
A GM and their players are usually not caught in a "gotcha"-contest of tricking eachother with semantics.
Exactly my point if they are visibly moving they are fair game.
But step does not trigger movement based triggers simply because thats the entire point of step.
NorrKnekten wrote: What possible trigger could trigger of the Step if the trigger isn't based on movement? When step itself is only observable as the character moving.
... actually I did think of one but I dont think I would personally allow it because its just to broad and not a specific observation, "They do anything other than attacking"
"If they try to step away" would be narrow enough that a GM worried about game balance might still reasonably allow it. After all, that doesn't expand the things covered, it just 'flips' (and narrows) the classic reactive strike concept from "step immune, stride attacked" to "stride immune, step attacked." I doubt that's unbalancing except for the unpredictability factor.
But yeah that last one is waaay overbroad and clearly not the intent. Otherwise the player could argue for "if they do anything other than the hokey pokey" and thus make Ready allow them a reactive strike on any combat-releveant action the enemy does. Again, that's clearly not the intent. The intent is that the player describe a specific something their character will react to, and to have it be described in in-game observable terms not meta terms like traits or "1a actions" or things like that.
One other strategic thing to think about is that Readying dastardly dash to trip someone trying to move away from you wastes half the feat's value, since it also gives a move which you aren't using. The player may be better off using a readied DD for something like: "when the archer over there gets ready to strike me, I'm going to trip the guy next to me and then stride behind that barrier"
NorrKnekten wrote: Dr. Frank Funkelstein wrote: "I attack them if they move" is natural language and only relies on your perception of them moving, it does not care about stride, step or jump.
Standing up could also count, just clarify it.
A GM and their players are usually not caught in a "gotcha"-contest of tricking eachother with semantics.
Exactly my point if they are visibly moving they are fair game.
But step does not trigger movement based triggers simply because thats the entire point of step. And reacting to changing position is the entire point of reacting to changing position. Which is in-world and obviously visible. It makes no sense that Stride would trigger that custom reaction and Step - not.
I see only one compromise: Step absolutely triggers custom reactions on changing position. But if the readied action is something like Striking, with reach and stuff, it still doesn't work. Anything range or spell-like or invented custom things will work.
I have to agree with Errenor on that: Step should not avoid Ready actions at all (which it doesn't from a strict application of the rules).
Otherwise, you can't do the classical "Surrender or I strike you!" as the enemy can just Step away from you then run. That's ridiculous to consider you can't react to that.
Easl wrote: Otherwise the player could argue for "if they do anything other than the hokey pokey" and thus make Ready allow them a reactive strike on any combat-releveant action the enemy does. I'd allow it as long as you are triggering your Ready action immediately when they act. You can't react to later actions because the trigger has already happened. So you don't react to whatever action you want, you just react to the creature first action of its turn. As it's rather common to ask enemies to surrender and then Ready an action if they don't.
Easl wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: What possible trigger could trigger of the Step if the trigger isn't based on movement? When step itself is only observable as the character moving.
... actually I did think of one but I dont think I would personally allow it because its just to broad and not a specific observation, "They do anything other than attacking"
"If they try to step away" would be narrow enough that a GM worried about game balance might still reasonably allow it. After all, that doesn't expand the things covered, it just 'flips' (and narrows) the classic reactive strike concept from "step immune, stride attacked" to "stride immune, step attacked." I doubt that's unbalancing except for the unpredictability factor. Well yeah, but its less so for balance reasons and just because Step is supposed to be the thing that counters movement based reactions.
Easl wrote: One other strategic thing to think about is that Readying dastardly dash to trip someone trying to move away from you wastes half the feat's value, since it also gives a move which you aren't using. The player may be better off using a readied DD for something like: "when the archer over there gets ready to strike me, I'm going to trip the guy next to me and then stride behind that barrier" What stops someone from moving along like Reactive Pursuit? They can just say "I want to ready Dastardly Dash and pursue someone whose moving away"
As for the archer targeting you, GM is the one who decides if you realistically can benefit from cover or if the strike goes off before you move. Or if you even can use "Targeted by that archer" as a reaction
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
SuperBidi wrote: I have to agree with Errenor on that: Step should not avoid Ready actions at all (which it doesn't from a strict application of the rules).
Otherwise, you can't do the classical "Surrender or I strike you!" as the enemy can just Step away from you then run. That's ridiculous to consider you can't react to that.
Granted it does not make sense but so doesn't a 5ft stride triggering reactions but those are the rules we have, I wouldn't be happy as a player if a monster with Improved Knockdown both hit and knocked me down despite me trying to avoid it with step so thats how I adjudicate things.
SuperBidi wrote: Easl wrote: Otherwise the player could argue for "if they do anything other than the hokey pokey" and thus make Ready allow them a reactive strike on any combat-releveant action the enemy does. I'd allow it as long as you are triggering your Ready action immediately when they act. You can't react to later actions because the trigger has already happened. So you don't react to whatever action you want, you just react to the creature first action of its turn. As it's rather common to ask enemies to surrender and then Ready an action if they don't.
So essentially you would modify it to "if their first action isnt x"? Because you do get to pick and choose any event that satisfy the trigger. Because whenever they do anything other than the specified thing they satisfy the trigger.
NorrKnekten wrote: So essentially you would modify it to "if their first action isnt x"? Because you do get to pick and choose any event that satisfy the trigger. Because whenever they do anything other than the specified thing they satisfy the trigger. The difficulty is that Ready is in general used for story elements. From my experience, it's more often that not used to play with the terrain or specific situations that have more to do with the adventure than with combat actions precisely. And in that case, I tend to allow everything because I really want the player to open the trap door when an enemy is on it or to ask for an enemy to surrender without living a gotcha moment because of a rule gap.
But my early question has more to do with a tactic the player uses regularly and that has to be properly adjudicated as it is meant to be repeated. And the issue in that case is that you have to resort to RAW unless there's an issue with it. And RAW is that you can Ready an action on Step. It may be a stupid RAW (or not) but it actually works.
Yeah... I agree with that if it fits the narrative one should probably allow it even if Ready is not my preffered method of doing that. Especially not in the cases of surrendering when you could just make it a Request or Coerce.
RAW theres is nothing wrong with "If the enemy moves into this area, Interact to open the trap door" or "If they continue being hostile, Strike them" and if we ignore GMCore, There is nothing wrong with readying it off actions the PC would not know is happening like Recall Knowledge. You could ready it off someone casting a specific spell even though the character would have no idea what spell is being cast outside of having quick recognition.
But as said earlier Readying off actual actions as opposed to visible phenomenon isn't following the GMCore in my eyes, regardless of how visible the result of that action is. Quote: 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. Now I understand that GMCore isn't supposed to be actual written rules most of the time but it does show a clear RAI. Step(The action) is a rules concept that is, for the most part, indestinguishable from "move 5 feet".
This is where GM strictness and table variation comes into play as normal for adjudicated actions, They can rule that a trigger "An enemy ceases to have cover" is not triggered by step as they are stepping out of a square and into another where they dont have cover.
For things the player intends to use as a frequent tactic like Dastardly Dash, I think the best adjudication is that you cannot use it to stride away from harmful effects or into cover when targeted in an effort to avoid/lessen the save/attack roll. Something that I typically don't allow at my tables either way. Its still a great move regardless for Swashbucklers who are a bit out of position.
You can intercept enemies moving towards your casters, you can dash in and trip them if they move to close or attack. If they step to avoid the reaction then so what? If they need to step once or twice to avoid your ready then you have traded your actions for theirs.
In the original question, I don't get the distinction being made. Dirty Trick also is an attack just like Trip. So neither should be possible to Ready in that scenario
yellowpete wrote: In the original question, I don't get the distinction being made. Dirty Trick also is an attack just like Trip. So neither should be possible to Ready in that scenario Finishers only disable your actions with the Attack Trait until the end of your turn.
If you ready the either of the two then your turn has ended and thus RAW you should be able to use either of them since there is no written clause that you need to be able to use the action when you ready it.
yellowpete wrote: In the original question, I don't get the distinction being made. Dirty Trick also is an attack just like Trip. So neither should be possible to Ready in that scenario You are right...
I never realized Dirty Trick had the Attack Trait, it seems so out of place.
Well, then my question is pointless :D
But it raised an enlightening discussion, at least for me.
NorrKnekten wrote: yellowpete wrote: In the original question, I don't get the distinction being made. Dirty Trick also is an attack just like Trip. So neither should be possible to Ready in that scenario Finishers only disable your actions with the Attack Trait until the end of your turn.
If you ready the either of the two then your turn has ended and thus RAW you should be able to use either of them since there is no written clause that you need to be able to use the action when you ready it.
The clause is in Ready itself.
"Choose a single action or free action you can use, and designate a trigger."
Lacking any further qualification, I read this condition as referring to the present moment at which you take the Ready action.
Edit: However, upon rereading Dastardly Dash it turns out that you don't actually have to Trip or Dirty with it, you can also forgo that (it gives you the choice rather than telling you to). So I suppose we're back to square one, where the 'mode' of the action which allows you to Ready it might not be the one you actually end up using in your reaction.
I think personally I would have a player commit to which option they choose upon Readying, not just the generic action. So then it's useless in this case as it just gives you half a Stride.
yellowpete wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: yellowpete wrote: In the original question, I don't get the distinction being made. Dirty Trick also is an attack just like Trip. So neither should be possible to Ready in that scenario Finishers only disable your actions with the Attack Trait until the end of your turn.
If you ready the either of the two then your turn has ended and thus RAW you should be able to use either of them since there is no written clause that you need to be able to use the action when you ready it.
The clause is in Ready itself.
"Choose a single action or free action you can use, and designate a trigger."
Lacking any further qualification, I read this condition as referring to the present moment at which you take the Ready action. Good point, Yeah I agree with that.
SuperBidi wrote: Easl wrote: Otherwise the player could argue for "if they do anything other than the hokey pokey" and thus make Ready allow them a reactive strike on any combat-releveant action the enemy does. I'd allow it as long as you are triggering your Ready action immediately when they act.
Well no wonder your OP question sounded like you were worried about the game balance aspect of it. The way you'd allow it to function is quite powerful. Not RAI, either, IMO. 'Name something as your trigger' /= 'name everything as your trigger.'
yellowpete wrote: In the original question, I don't get the distinction being made. Dirty Trick also is an attack just like Trip. So neither should be possible to Ready in that scenario Why not? Ready doesn't say it takes on the traits of the readied action. So "[1a finisher], 2a Ready" is not taking an attack action in your turn after the finisher action. Your action with the attack trait doesn't occur until someone else's turn. Which has to be legal otherwise finishers would prevent all reactive strikes and the like. I'm with Norr on it being allowed...I just think the GMC guidance is calling for the player to specify a reasonably narrow set things as the trigger. Not "GM aha i gotcha" narrow but not "everything but the hokey pokey" broad either.
NorrKnekten wrote: I feel like i have to ask but, What possible trigger could trigger of the Step if the trigger isn't based on movement? When step itself is only observable as the character moving. The trigger would simply be, "the enemy moves away from me". Either Stride or Step would trigger that because the 'moves away' isn't referencing game rules (it isn't allowed to), but character viewable distance.
I'm mentioning it because it is another place where 'strict RAW is a troll ruling'. Which is also why in that same post I mention that even though that is what RAW is, I wouldn't play the game that way.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Finoan wrote: NorrKnekten wrote: I feel like i have to ask but, What possible trigger could trigger of the Step if the trigger isn't based on movement? When step itself is only observable as the character moving. The trigger would simply be, "the enemy moves away from me". Either Stride or Step would trigger that because the 'moves away' isn't referencing game rules (it isn't allowed to), but character viewable distance.
I'm mentioning it because it is another place where 'strict RAW is a troll ruling'. Which is also why in that same post I mention that even though that is what RAW is, I wouldn't play the game that way. I mean fair enough, though as a GM I translate "moves away from me" as "moves into a square further away from me". Which per definition Step doesn't trigger.
I did also mention that depending on GM a step could trigger if someone were to step out of cover if the trigger was "they cease to have cover" but as said, Table Variation expected.
It is honestly very bizarre that Step is written to bypass reactions in such a generic way, instead of specifically bypassing the Reactive Strike family.
.
I'm tempted to have Step work more similar to standing up, where the Reaction typically fires, but only happens after the Step finishes and if it's still valid. That helps keep Step mostly consistent with how it would still explicitly never provoke Reactive Strike, and this provides counterplay to Ready, etc, that is limited while remaining useful.
A foe needing to Step out of range of a Readied Grab/Trip, else it'll still fire off, seems an appropriate middle ground for Step being a full action for a single square of movement. Step being either useless or a freebie seems just too inappropriate to leave alone.
As this increases the nuance of considerations like creature reach, etc, while still being easy to understand from a gameplay PoV, I do rather like that homebrew tweak.
Easl wrote: yellowpete wrote: In the original question, I don't get the distinction being made. Dirty Trick also is an attack just like Trip. So neither should be possible to Ready in that scenario Why not? Ready doesn't say it takes on the traits of the readied action. So "[1a finisher], 2a Ready" is not taking an attack action in your turn after the finisher action... I think the issue is the phrase, " you can use," in Ready: Player Core pg. 417 2.0 wrote: You prepare to use an action that will occur outside your turn. Choose a single action or free action you can use, and designate a trigger. Your turn then ends. If the trigger you designated occurs before the start of your next turn, you can use the chosen action as a reaction (provided you still meet the requirements to use it). You can't Ready a free action that already has a trigger.
If you have a multiple attack penalty and your readied action is an attack action, your readied attack takes the multiple attack penalty you had at the time you used Ready. This is one of the few times the multiple attack penalty applies when it's not your turn.
There are two ways to read that phrase with that sentence.
1. Choose a single action or free action your character knows how to perform.
2. Choose a single action or free action that is valid for your character to perform at this moment.
If someone is reading as per #1, then there is no conflict. Attack actions made as the reaction defined by the trigger are not restricted by either the Finisher or Flourish Traits of actions used before readying.
If someone is reading per #2, however, using a Finisher on the first action would prevent readying any action or one-action activity that has anything that includes the Attack trait. Similarly, using a Flourish on the first action would prevent readying anything with the Flourish trait.
Trip.H wrote: It is honestly very bizarre that Step is written to bypass reactions in such a generic way, instead of specifically bypassing the Reactive Strike family.
I'm tempted to have Step work more similar to standing up, where the Reaction typically fires, but only happens after the Step finishes and if it's still valid. That helps keep Step mostly consistent with how it would still explicitly never provoke Reactive Strike, and this provides counterplay to Ready, etc, that is limited while remaining useful.
Why is it bizarre? They want Step to generically be the correct choice to make if you think the opponent has a reaction and you want to back off. By your ruling, if the enemy has a larger reach than your movement, your step will still trigger the reaction. That's clearly not as intended.
If you want to stop people from stepping, create difficult terrain. Step is already a punishingly weak action and reaction-based Strikes are hugely overvalued already especially on reach, there's no reason to nerf it further. Yes, if an enemy is readying an action (which you don't know the trigger of) to Strike when you move away, Step should counter it. Why not?
Ryangwy wrote: Trip.H wrote: [...]
Why is it bizarre? [...] From a game design standpoint, it's just super dicey / dangerous to give a 1A universal action the ability to completely bypass such a broad category of (re)action.
You don't know how important reactions will be to future scenarios, and you are pre-deleting a huge amount of tactical nuance by adding such a "universal answer" to the danger of a Reaction.
.
I'm a little surprised my first guess was correct when I checked AoN, but this Step detail actually is *already* creating a "broken RaW" situation (and there are likely many more Reactions elsewhere that are absolutely not intended to be Step-avoidable).
There is no rule inside the Hazards (traps) text that overrules the Step super power.
It is literally RaW right now that if you only Step through a room, many Hazards should be unable to activate because so many use Reactions that Step bypasses. This detail of Step is already so problematic/stupid, that I'm guessing 99.5% of tables houserule a fix / exception for hazards.
(and if one somehow rules that a trap reaction trigger like "A creature enters the area" is not bypassed by Step's "[...] doesn't trigger reactions, [...], that can be triggered by move actions or upon leaving or entering a square."
then you get the "Step is completely worthless" ruling.)
Pixel Popper wrote:
1. Choose a single action or free action your character knows how to perform.
2. Choose a single action or free action that is valid for your character to perform at this moment.
If someone is reading as per #1, then there is no conflict...If someone is reading per #2, however, using a Finisher on the first action would prevent readying any action or one-action activity that has anything that includes the Attack trait. Fair enough. If it ever comes up (we have no Swashies), I'll recommend the GM use #1, so as not to create TBTBT. To prevent TGTBT, I think judicious GMing of "you might sometimes need to put limits on what they can choose" should solve the problem. That requires brains rather than a mechanical, written heuristic. But so it goes.
I agree with most of what Trip.H is saying. But at the same time Step is already an incredibly weak action that is typically just used to avoid punishments.
And I am not entirely sure hazards do respect Step to begin with as part of RAW Triggering Hazards wrote: If the group fails to detect a hazard and the hazard’s trigger is a standard part of traveling (such as stepping on a floor plate or moving through a magical sensor while walking), the hazard’s reaction occurs. Likely they are probably written more with Exploration and Traveling in mind, And as such don't bother about move actions and entering/leaving a square for the most part.
Granted there are some adventures that explicitly say that a character can step in order to avoid triggering certain hazards or otherwise slowly and carefully move trough it.
That sentence you quoted was the best I could find as well, and it only applies when in travel mode. If you are in encounter mode and actually using Step, I can find no reason for most traps to be able to use their Reactions.
That's the danger of a specific overrule applying to a broad context, you need a yet more specific override to take priority.
Trip.H wrote: That sentence you quoted was the best I could find as well, and it only applies when in travel mode. If you are in encounter mode and actually using Step, I can find no reason for most traps to be able to use their Reactions.
That's the danger of a specific overrule applying to a broad context, you need a yet more specific override to take priority.
Does it need to apply to exploration/travel mode only? because I don't really think it does. The segment above it regarding detecting hazards notes the usage of both seek and search depending on mode. Even stating that for hazards without a proficiency requirement you should pre-roll perception in exploration before the characters enter the area and thus, before they had the opportunity to enter Encounter Mode.
So a trigger that is "a Standard part of traveling" really just sounds like 'traveling' is the umbrella term for stepping, walking, moving, stands on, enters, etc. and not a reference to Travel mode.
Who knows.. maybe this is the specific override to step/mobility. If they havent detected it and still performs the trigger, even by using Step, the reaction occurs. Personally... I'm not sure about that but it is a possible intention. Though from the triggers I usually see on hazards, they typically don't bother about actions with the move trait, or if a creature enters or leaves a specific square. Rather its typically worded around flavor pieces such as wires, plates or sometimes just sheer proximity. Leaving it rather open to interpretation and theathre of the mind.
I rather like that step, the super slow calculated and careful movement option, tends to keep you safe from things.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Trip.H wrote:
From a game design standpoint, it's just super dicey / dangerous to give a 1A universal action the ability to completely bypass such a broad category of (re)action.
You don't know how important reactions will be to future scenarios, and you are pre-deleting a huge amount of tactical nuance by adding such a "universal answer" to the danger of a Reaction.
But the point of Step is to be broad. Yes, if you move at 1/6th the speed very carefully through an area, you don't activate movement-based traps (which requires you to be in encounter mode, since you can't Step in exploration mode, and does nothing against an already active complex hazard). Plenty of things in the game unilaterally shuts down everything with a certain tag, and Reactive Strike is in fact one of them (on a crit, disrupt any manipulate action). Why can't Step do that?
If, for some reason, stepping is breaking your game, add difficult terrain, don't shut it down just because you like reactions always working.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ryangwy wrote: since you can't Step in exploration mode But you can step in Exploration mode, Any action you can use in Encounter mode can also be used in Exploration mode unless there is an explicit rule that forbids that action like with stances, or the GM for some reason forbids you to step along an entire corridor at 100ft per minute.
Running Exploration wrote: Actions and Reactions: Though exploration isn't broken into rounds, exploration activities assume the PCs are spending part of their time using actions, such as Seeking or Interacting. If they have specific actions they want to use, they should ask; you can decide whether the actions apply and whether to switch to encounter mode for greater detail. PCs can use any relevant reactions that come up during exploration mode. It's even RAW that you can improvise an exploration activity that is just 2 steps a every 6 seconds.
The point is that Step being able to bypass every hazard surely can't be intended, and I personally don't think step RAW can or even is meant to bypass "a medium or larger creature walks ontop of the bridge" or "A creature steps onto a pressure plate" even if there are cases where hazards can be bypassed, either from the hazard triggering on creatures that entre a square, or explicitly stating that step does not trigger it.
Other cases like traps triggering if someone ends their movement in the area wouldnt let someone avoid it with a Step. The trigger isn't the usage of a move action, And is neither based on entering or exiting a square.
Recent threads in Rules Discussion
|
