There is bit of text in Move Actions that Trigger Reactions that rather hard-confirms the Reaction(s) happen before the triggering action thanks to painting an exception.
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.
And thanks to text on Disrupting Actions we know that actions, resources, etc, are spent upfront, and are *not* refunded if the action fails to complete.
Note that the below is not talking about "Disrupting" specifically, which is using a Reaction to block/prevent the triggering Action from completing partway through.
The below is instead breaking the needed conditions for completion; making the action whiff / miss.
.
There is an unexplored, and seemingly dev intended, combo of Ready and Leap I've not seen nor heard of being used.
By all accounts, PCs who are willing to commit the 2A chunk upfront to Ready, can prepare a Leap action to hop away from a foe as soon as they commit to a swing.* While this is pretty dang harsh for spellcasters to attempt, hasted martials, especially Monks, may find this to be seriously desirable.
So long as the Leap exits melee reach, this would guarantee a 2:1 action trade, while circumstantially being a much larger benefit. Yet, because of how the bulk of the PC's turn is spent prepping for something that may not even happen, I don't think I can call this overpowered / ban worthy.
Note that the GM should *not* let the player trigger the Reaction after the attack roll has been made, as that would be peeking at the outcome and deciding after the fact. The dodge-Leap needs to happen after the attack is declared, but before any rolls.
.
That said, I am bringing it up firstly to see if I am mistaken in the RaW reading here.
(Yes, I totally plan on doing Ready:Leap with my new Summoner next session if the opportunity presents itself)
I am also wondering if anyone has experience with this or similar Ready use, as well as if this has been banned / greenlit at tables you have encountered.
.
The Ready action really seems like the gateway into a much more dynamic and chess style of pf2 play, and that sounds like fun to me.
The caveats against this behavior lies not within how RAW but rather how GMCore wants us to adjudicate these rules and interactions based on narrative. A GM say that trying to avoid an incoming strike as it is declared is not enough to avoid it completely with no check and may rule it to function akin to Nimble Dodge, or allow the complete avoidance on a successful skillcheck.
There are plenty of *s sprinkled all around this topic, but I want to zoom in a bit on this one because I disagree due to some interesting RaW text here.
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.
It really seems that RaW, there is no "you try to Leap-dodge, but make a roll" possible for GMs. Nor to partially refund the foe's whiff action(s), that much is rather firm textual instruction.
If a GM were to add a fail chance, that would be a counter-RaW houserule (possibly as a game balance measure), and *not* a "filling in missing gaps" style GM ruling.It's specifically extra incidentals (and adjudication of new uncertainties) that the book says GMs can/should play with.
It is written in a "yes, and" manner, *not* in a "only if you ___" manner.
Rephrased: the RaW says the player's Ready:blank happens and the foe action(s) are gone, period. And then the GM gets to play with what happens in addition to, or because of, that specific action-reaction.
One example that technically fits this RaW would be for the GM to add a new effect/penalty of using Leap to dodge, such as making yourself off-guard until your turn begins due landing in difficult terrain --> sprained ankle.
Or even something as nasty as Slow 1 due to muscle over-exertion.
BUT. As far as I can tell, there isn't any valid RaW to meddle with the action(s) for things like injecting fail chances where they don't normally exist.
This may seem like a minor quibble, but has a big effect on player psychology.
.
To be clear, the GM power to add consequences is the exact same ~rule of GM narrative-action fiat that allows players to flip tables, cut chandeliers, etc.
From my PoV, it's more than a bit anti-player to quick-draw that GM power to pre-nerf Ready, a notoriously underutilized aspect of the system.
Ready is *more* action-expensive than a caster throwing their top slot spells around, for *less* guarantee of benefit. It's not a cheap, disposable commitment.
I mean this works, sure, though....why Leap? Obviously if you're surrounded by Difficult Terrain it will carry you farther, but a Monk (or anyone, really) can just select Stride and you'll move more with less investment, no?
Though now I have a very funny image of a high level character with Cat Fall, Quick Jump and Cloud Jump Readying a High Jump to dodge attacks Paper Mario style.
Just for the sake of example clarity.
The "but that's gotta be cheating" impulse is waaaay higher for Ready:Stride than for Ready:Leap
Stride is extra funky in that it typically happens in 5 ft chunks. Trying to Ready a Stride to dodge melee swings would likely have a lot more GMs knee-jerking to say only the first 5ft can happen before the triggering action, or some other invented extra rules as a new restriction.
There's gotta be some 1A teleport effect somewhere, which would be more ideal to make the example case as black/white as possible.
I mean this works, sure, though....why Leap? Obviously if you're surrounded by Difficult Terrain it will carry you farther, but a Monk (or anyone, really) can just select Stride and you'll move more with less investment, no?
Though now I have a very funny image of a high level character with Cat Fall, Quick Jump and Cloud Jump Readying a High Jump to dodge attacks Paper Mario style.
Just for the sake of example clarity.
The "but that's gotta be cheating" impulse is waaaay higher for Ready:Stride than for Ready:Leap
Stride is extra funky in that it typically happens in 5 ft chunks. Trying to Ready a Stride to dodge melee swings would likely have a lot more GMs knee-jerking to say only the first 5ft can happen before the triggering action, or some other invented extra rules as a new restriction.
There's gotta be some 1A teleport effect somewhere, which would be more ideal to make the example case as black/white as possible.
There's Dimensional Assault with its obvious problems (although you can totally teleport next to a friend and slap them nonlethally with a fist, flavor it as bumping into them). There's also Shrink the Span. We also used to have Dimensional Steps but that one's no longer available I don't think.
Stride doesn't happen in 5 foot chunks though, it's 1 action, same as Leap. RAW allows both, and both work exactly the same way. A GM that thinks one is cheesy will likely think the other is cheese as well, since it doesn't really matter how you're moving out of range, just that you are. And both get slapped with Reactions on the way out (if the enemy has any), so it's not a huge difference.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Setting aside timing, PC cognizance, & adjudication for now, many of these Ready shenanigans lead to frustrating results that bog down gameplay. Flip the script to double check this tactic and I think you'd find players protesting how minions constantly Step or Stride away from Strikes. Maybe they even disperse when a caster begins casting (predicting an AoE or battlefield control spell). Maybe they close a door so a blast hits the party (which has happened to me under 3.X rules).
Except maybe vs. bosses, players will find a lot of their own actions being wasted. And that's unfun IMO. And if this were legitimate, duels would look kinda ridiculous (though I suppose in real life some do).
Note that even without split-second timing/faux-disruption one can imagine a lot of Readied actions that can ruin one's tactics. Wisdom's needed.
I swear I'm not trying to be an argumentative rules lawyer, but I don't think my disagreement was understood.
The "yes, but the game balance" type of GM fiat is fundamentally different from the "yes, but" that you are referencing.
That text about doing improv actions, explicitly discussing off-script things players may/will want to do and how to handle them. (If Ready:Dodge is fully RaW) That is a different topic not presently discussed.
A large part of me creating this thread was because I re-read the relevant text and realized that there was 0 improv / fiat required.
As far as the rules go, Readying a Leap dodge is as mundane as Raise a Shield. The full rules on what happens is spelled out, in a lot more black/white than I first realized.
Meaning, the "yes, but" text you present is perfectly -not- relevant to the Ready:Dodge interaction.
It is still very much up to GM adjudication, but only in the "might be too overpowered" way. In the same vein as banning/editing Timber Sentinel, etc, for being overpowered.
.
The topic / prompt:
(are these claimed rules around Ready & Reactions being read correctly, and if so:)
then is this something your table has seen, has it or something similar been banned/allowed, etc?
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am also wondering if anyone has experience with this or similar Ready use, as well as if this has been banned / greenlit at tables you have encountered.
It's an idea that gets brought up by someone on the forums at least once a year. At first, it seems like solid RAW. However, it tends to immediately make people think "that can't be right" or "that's seriously irritating" or "this is really cheesy" or "I don't care what RAW says, NO!".
But let's try to do a bit better than a knee-jerk refusal.
If you look in the GM Core, for Ready it has a section of advice:
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. (...)
It goes on to give some reasons for limits, but doesn't quite state the one I'm gonna bring up. That's actually covered one section later in the same chapter:
This section covers a few ground rules for how to best respond to PC tactics, when to apply ad hoc bonuses and penalties, and when to use certain tactics for NPCs. When PCs put effort into getting advantages against their foes, there should be some payoff, provided their tactics make sense in the narrative. Ad hoc bonuses and penalties give you some mechanical tools to emphasize that. Also keep in mind that you can change the flow of the story to respond to tactics as well. Altering an enemy's behavior can be a more satisfying consequence than just getting a bonus.
When you're determining whether to grant a special bonus that isn't defined in the rules, including when a player asks you whether they get a bonus for doing something, ask yourself the following questions.
* Is this the result of an interesting, surprising, or novel strategy by the character?
* Did this take effort or smart thinking to set up?
* Is this easy to replicate in pretty much every battle?If you answered yes to either of the first two, it's more likely you should assign a bonus—typically a +1 or +2 circumstance bonus. However, if you answered yes to the third, you probably shouldn't unless you really do want to see that tactic used over and over again.
I think this advice is also sensible advice for adjudicating Ready.
Ready isn't really like most other reactions. Most other reactions are a lot more locked down in exactly what they can do and why. To me that suggests that Ready should be run more cautiously by the GM. If there are regular reactions that do a particular thing, that you had to pay feats to get, then a "free" ability like Ready should not be miles better than that.
This would in many occasions be better than actual "dodge" abilities that tend to do things like "Step and gain +2 vs the triggering attack", or even Shield Block.
So when as a GM I'm looking on whether this should be allowed, I come around to the Too Good to be True principle. Accepting this interpretation of RAW would result in an ability that's too good to be true, and also really annoying to play with. So I feel justified in disallowing it.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is the same as Stride. "I Ready for a specific stage of resolving an action, where the enemy has spent their action but not had an effect yet" has never been a valid Ready Trigger. Nothing different with Leap instead of Stride.
Because rules are mirrored, but combat scenarios are varied, I am very curious to know how pf2 holds up when both sides do this. Players "wasting a lot of actions" because of dodge-happy foes does not seem problematic to me, as they are neglecting offense to do so, and only have a single Reaction per turn.
To be honest, all that sounds like an incredibly fun table to me. Even the chance of seeing a foe Ready behind a door, then react to block a spell of mine would make for a memorable moment. Love that example.
That kind of game seems way more appealing than the rather flow-charty norm that leaves contextual considerations like doors as rather irrelevant. Pf2 has a whole lot of "obvious" turns where your contextual possibilities will pretty much always be inferior to things like the Slow spell.
The hyper-contextuality of Ready seems like a rather evergreen spice that can keep the brain juices pumping, looking out for special uses of things like Ready:Shove into pit, Ready: shut door, etc.
.
Basically, one of my goals is trying to see if people have experience with significant Ready:____ use, so that I / thread readers don't stumble into some rules (or balance!) problem as blindly as they would have otherwise.
Messing with spell line of effect halfway through casting seems to be the most potent thing thus far.
RaW, that circumstance would need GM adjudication to say if the spell fizzles or hits and explodes upon the door; which specific spells land on which side of that ruling, etc.
The problem is the same as Stride. "I Ready for a specific stage of resolving an action, where the enemy has spent their action but not had an effect yet" has never been a valid Ready Trigger. Nothing different with Leap instead of Stride.
That is incompatible with how many Reactions presently function. Ruling like that would be to declare a number of feats / Reactions as illegal / invalid.
Some reactions and free actions are triggered by a creature using an action with the move trait. The most notable example is Attack of Opportunity. Actions with the move trait can trigger reactions or free actions throughout the course of the distance traveled. Each time you exit a square (or move 5 feet if not using a grid) 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.
Each time you exit a square (or move 5 feet if not using a grid) within a creature’s reach, your movement triggers those reactions
This bit here only invokes the default, each 5 ft of movement triggers reactions. Before or after is ambiguous.
If the Reaction happened second, then the most basic Reaction, Attack of Opportunity, would be crippled, only working when a 5ft chunk of Stride, etc, ends still inside one's reach.
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.
This bit of text reveals that Reactions going first is the default, and that a special exception like this one is needed to override it so that the Reaction happens second.
.
Do you have any text that claims the opposite of the above? Any text that indicates that Reactions happen second?
As far as I know, the Reaction ability specifies when it happens. Some are before, some after.
There are plenty of other examples besides attack of opportunity that rely upon Reactions going first, some even go before other Reactions, lol.
Trigger: An adjacent enemy begins to use a reaction
Grabbing a sleeve, swiping with your weapon, or creating another obstruction, you reflexively foil an enemy’s response. If the triggering creature’s level is equal to or lower than yours, you disrupt the triggering reaction. If the triggering creature’s level is higher than yours, you must make an attack roll against its AC. On a success, you disrupt the reaction.
This kind of "a ___ begins to ___" is a real, and valid, Reaction trigger in pf2. If you have text that indicates the opposite, please share it.
Thank you, it's exactly those kinds of table stories and anecdotes that I am looking for.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is the same as Stride. "I Ready for a specific stage of resolving an action, where the enemy has spent their action but not had an effect yet" has never been a valid Ready Trigger. Nothing different with Leap instead of Stride.That is incompatible with how many Reactions presently function. Ruling like that would be to declare a number of feats / Reactions as illegal / invalid.
Some reactions and free actions are triggered by a creature using an action with the move trait. The most notable example is Attack of Opportunity. Actions with the move trait can trigger reactions or free actions throughout the course of the distance traveled. Each time you exit a square (or move 5 feet if not using a grid) 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.Each time you exit a square (or move 5 feet if not using a grid) within a creature’s reach, your movement triggers those reactionsThis bit here only invokes the default, each 5 ft of movement triggers reactions. Before or after is ambiguous.
If the Reaction happened second, then the most basic Reaction, Attack of Opportunity, would be crippled, only working when a 5ft chunk of Stride, etc, ends still inside one's reach.
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.This bit of text reveals that Reactions going first is the default, and that a special exception like this one is needed to override it so that the Reaction happens second.
.
Do you have any text that claims the opposite of the above? Any text that indicates that Reactions happen second?
As far as I know, the Reaction ability...
I didn't say not a valid REACTION trigger. I said not a valid READY trigger. Many printed reactions have triggers based on rules concepts. That doesn't invalidate Ready's restrictions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is the same as Stride. "I Ready for a specific stage of resolving an action, where the enemy has spent their action but not had an effect yet" has never been a valid Ready Trigger. Nothing different with Leap instead of Stride.That is incompatible with how many Reactions presently function. Ruling like that would be to declare a number of feats / Reactions as illegal / invalid.
Some reactions and free actions are triggered by a creature using an action with the move trait. The most notable example is Attack of Opportunity. Actions with the move trait can trigger reactions or free actions throughout the course of the distance traveled. Each time you exit a square (or move 5 feet if not using a grid) 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.If the Reaction happened second, then the most basic Reaction, Attack of Opportunity, would be crippled, only working when a 5ft chunk of Stride, etc, ends still inside one's reach. This text not only clarifies that is not the case, but also reveals that Reactions going first is the default that needs a special exception to override.
.
Do you have any text that claims the opposite of the above? Any text that indicates that Reactions happen second?
As far as I know, the Reaction ability specifies when it happens. Some are before, some after.
There are plenty of other examples besides attack of opportunity that rely upon Reactions going first, some even go before other Reactions, lol.
...Trigger: An adjacent enemy begins to use a reaction
Grabbing a sleeve, swiping with your weapon, or creating another obstruction, you reflexively foil an enemy’s response. If the
I'm not Hammerjack, but I don't think they're arguing over when the trigger happens, just what the trigger is.
The rules state here that triggers like "when they use a concentrate action" or "when they have X amount of hit points" don't work.
Therefore, something like "I Ready for a specific stage of resolving an action, where the enemy has spent their action but not had an effect yet", as Hammerjack says, wouldn't fly.
It'd need to be something like "I ready to stride away when they try to attack me" or "I ready to leap away when they come within 15 feet of me" or "I ready to burrow when they cast a spell that includes me as the target".
And I don't see any of these as particularly powerful. You're giving up 2 actions and a Reaction for this to pop off, and it's not guaranteed.
The Guardian example above is in fact pretty bad. If the monster just goes after your friend, you basically took a one action turn for 0 gain. It was a complete waste. You would've been better off using Taunting Strike, Raising your shield and doing something else.
It can in fact be detrimental, since they could attack you, you move, then they move, strike a friend, and because you avoided their attack you're now out of position and can't use Intercept Strike to help your friend.
There's a lot of context that depends heavily on the encounter that makes this strategy worthless, which is why I've never bothered to use it and I've only seen it from my players like, three times.
Have you encountered actual play where Ready was too powerful to leave alone, or is this disallowance preemptive?
I think even these on paper max possibilities of Ready are being significantly overblown.
Needing both the 2A chunk and Reaction is, to repeat myself, about the most action-intensive thing a PC can commit to. And with no guarantee the trigger will even occur. It would make perfect game sense for foes to get surprised once, then not swing upon a PC each time they Ready a dodge. That opportunity cost going up in smoke is a big swing in the other direction.
Even something like a surprise [subtle] spell can mean a Ready:___ is never triggered.
.
The best ability comparison I can think of is Rogue's Preparation, which is a 1A trade for another Reaction before their next turn.
Even when that's as close as it gets, Ready still looks rather expensive to attempt in comparison.
A lot of Ready talk feels like banning a common spell because the crit fail looks too good on paper, without other details like targeting, etc, being a real factor in the consideration. I'm more keen to take a "if it is a problem, we can ban/edit it *when* it is a problem. Not before" approach to something like this.
.
As an example:
While planning it out, I thought my Alchemist/Witch comboing Sticky Bombs to impose persistent Slashing for the Blood in the Water hex would be too good to leave un-nerfed. On miss, you still get a free sustain thanks to bomb splash still doing slash damage, and if you hit with the bomb, you impose yet more free sustains of damage at the end of the foe's turns. The focus spell was definitely not written with Alch bombs in mind.
On paper, the combo sounded too good to be true, and I had to fight the impulse to reject or pre-nerf it. In the reality of actual table play, it was so low on the priority list, that I kinda had to force it for roleplay/fun a few times.
I didn't say not a valid REACTION trigger. I said not a valid READY trigger. Many printed reactions have triggers based on rules concepts. That doesn't invalidate Ready's restrictions.
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.
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.
Yeah, that's not an issue. The only text discussing limitations of Ready is this, and it has nothing to do with the timing of Ready's effects being before/after the trigger.
Again, part of the point of the thread is to clear the air of "assumed RaW" exactly like this false restriction, and point to how neat "real" Ready's possibilities are. Please quote / double-check text before doubling down.
To restate: there is no magic rule limiting Ready actions to post-trigger moments.
A Ready trigger of "foes begins to cast a spell" is perfectly valid.
If the foe instead uses subtle magic, then the trigger cannot be used due to the PC not being able to know spellcasting is happening (but the PC is seeing the foe make other movements that hide the spellcast).
While the Reaction never fires, the trigger is still valid, even if it's a custom Ready trigger.
This rule of Ready needing "observable" triggers, which is so often misquoted, is already the default; some rare Reactions do involve non-visible triggers, but the "observable only" default is why looking to examples like Reactive Interference is helpful to understand Ready's possibilities.
Most of the time, there is an implied "that you can see" clause within Reactions, even when they do not repeat the "must be observable" bit of Ready's sidebar.
If a Reactive Interference Rogue is adjacent a spellcaster with Disappearance active, I would expect the GM to rule the Rogue cannot disrupt Reactions that they have no awareness of, even if the trigger conditions are met.
The problem with using Reactions to Movement to establish reaction timing is that IT is an exception to the general rule of Actions with Triggers on PC1 p.414, and that bit at the end is just returning to the status quo of reactions happening AFTER their trigger
Reactions occur after the trigger, yes, but this doesn't mean the enemy gets to complete the triggering action even if it isn't disrupted.
If a caster in reach of a Fighter uses Cast a Spell, and the Spell has the Manipulate trait, it triggers Reactive Strike. If the strike is a hit, it won't disrupt the action, but if may just kill the caster. If the damage is enough to get the caster to 0 HP, does the spell go off? I think most people here would say "No", and they would stil say "No" even if Reactive Strike didn't disrupt manipualte actions.*
If a Thaumaturge with Implement's Interruption hits and kills an enemy when they try to Demoralize the Thaumaturge with a normal hit, does the Demoralize go through? Again, I'd say No, and I'm pretty sure most people would agree.
Which means Reactive Strike/Implement's Interruption/Other such reactions are occuring at some point between the actions being expended but before the activity resolves.
And this all comes back to what does it mean to use an action or activity? (which is the verbiage of quite a lot of reactions) When do I use it, when I declare I will and spend actions, or after its completed?
Clearly for reactions to be able to Disrupt it has to be the former, otherwise the correct way to play them is to let the triggering action resolve, then check to see if the Reaction disrupts it and then retroactively erase it's effects if disrupted. But I've never seen anyone run it this way.
To bring it back to the Ready discussion, I pose this question: If your players are facing the certified classic (tm) situation of a cult member about to stab a sacrificial victim tied to an altar, and a player says "I ready an action to shoot them when they try to stab the victim", would you have the bad guy stab the victim, then get shot, or would you say the character gets to shoot (and maybe kill) the guy before they get to stab the victim?
*I was looking for spells that had Move but not Manipulate to put in this example to make it clearer even on a crit, but the only one is Unfolding Wind Crash so it'd be more of a corner case than anything.
I very much appreciate the direct quotations when possible.
I do not understand why my core point is still being missed here.
There are many Reactions that demonstrate that
When its trigger is satisfied—and only when it is satisfied—you can use the reaction or free action, though you don't have to use the action if you don't want to.
allows for triggers like "A foe begins at attack or Strike against me" and the Reaction will still fully resolve before any dice are rolled for the attack.
Again, if this was not true, then feats like Reactive Interference would be invalid / broken.
Some abilities have triggers keyed to happen after, such as Sidestep's "The attack roll for a Strike targeting you fails or critically fails" (meaning it's already been rolled)
but both before and after types are rules-valid.
And without Ready getting some special restriction, choosing a before trigger like "begins to" cast, strike, etc, we have no RaW reason to say it is invalid.
That type of trigger very much meets the "only when it's satisfied" clause (or else other Reactions couldn't use such triggers, as that's a general rule).
To have a RaW reason against it, we either need for Ready to have a special restriction, or the general Reactions rules need to block it. Neither of these are the case.
.
You need another example that Reactions fire their effects before the triggering cause?
Aid.
Trigger: An ally is about to use an action that requires a skill check or attack roll.
Requirements The ally is willing to accept your aid, and you have prepared to help (see below).
[snip]
Yeah, the entire Aid action also depends on pre-trigger Reactions being the normal, default, and very much valid.
All the many +_ to __ upcoming roll Reactions depend on this; modifying the trigger before it happens can only work under this "fully resolve before the trigger" situation is the rules-valid norm.
Counterspell depends upon this, along with related actions, like Absorb Into the Aegis (another anti-spell reaction, that ya know, has to be triggered on cast start, but resolve before the spell takes effect).
How about one more:
Trigger An enemy within your reach targets you or an ally with a weapon Strike
Requirements: You have your fist positioned to parry
You attempt to Disarm the weapon the enemy is attacking with. You gain a +2 status bonus to this Disarm check, and if the check is successful, the triggering attack is disrupted. If the Disarm attempt is a critical success and you have a hand free, you can catch the disarmed weapon in your hand instead of it falling to the ground in the target's space.
Again, if these are valid pf2 Reaction triggers, then they are valid options for Ready.
.
So, once again, it seems that a rule is being misapplied in a way that is not relevant to: "is Ready:Dodge RaW?".
It is honestly a bit baffling that such clear RaW is having this much trouble getting through.
+ Reactions: can take full effect and complete before the triggering action
+ Ready: extra limitation / clarification to only character observable triggers
+ Readied Action: can move target out of range
= Can Ready a Reaction that moves target out of range, triggered after action is committed, but before it takes effect.
This is the entire equation.
(and again, the issue of this being the RaW or not is a different discussion to the possible need for houseruling due to balance concerns)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's too much ambiguity here in terms of timing and how actions resolve here. There is literally no RAW about how to resolve the interaction, therefore it only works if the GM decides they want it to. This makes it kind of tricky to discuss as a tactic.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have you encountered actual play where Ready was too powerful to leave alone, or is this disallowance preemptive?
It's absolutely a preemtive one. I'm fairly sure that I would really dislike it if this became a repeated thing in my games. Yeah, it's quite a visceral dislike.
You can try it in your games of course. Maybe it turns out to be fine. Or maybe it doesn't. Maybe it turns out you're having a good time but other people are frustrated. You won't know for sure until you try.
You asked if anyone had any experience or prior thought about this, and yes, I see it pop up in rules discussions periodically as someone discovers these rules. I've given you my rules perspective which boils down to:
* Ready isn't like the other, more narrowly defined reactions. It's much more subject to GM say-so. Including "for the good of the game, I'm just not going to allow that particular ready".
* Ready, as an essentially free ability, shouldn't overshadow other reactions that you have to pay for. If Ready mimics one, it should probably do so in a weaker way.
* Unexpectedly invalidating enemy actions is really powerful. We consider Slow to be a good spell because even on a successful save you've traded two of a PC's actions and a spell slot for one boss action. Given that encounters are often decided in a few rounds, wasting one or two critical enemy turns really is very powerful.
The thing is, discussions about this topic tends to come down to a "but RAW I can do this" vs the GM's "but I really hate it if you do it in MY game" argument. That's not an argument you can really win. Even if you browbeat your GM into accepting it, if it's ruining their fun then you're reducing the life expectancy of the campaign.
So sure, give it a try and see how people react, but it's best to not over-commit and build an entire character around it right away.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a little bit overstated how serious this is. It's annoying, but... two actions and a reaction to potentially negate an attack is a lot of resources even in its most permissive ruling... and like, if the enemy doesn't swing at you you've essentially given yourself slowed 2 for nothing.
That said I think there's too much RAW ambiguity for the argument over how strong it is to even feel relevant. This only happens with multiple layers of both player and GM buy in, so if you're doing this at a table it's only because everyone else agreed to allow it. That kind of nips any cheese issue in the bud.
... For emphasis, while there's been a lot of talk over reaction trigger timing, I think it's also worth noting that there isn't even any clear guidance on outcomes either. There is zero rules guidance anywhere on how to resolve an action becoming illegal after it's already started (and to add another wrinkle to it, if we take the OP's position that reactions completely pre-empt their trigger, whether an action even takes place at all is also ambiguous) so basically anything the GM says is valid here.
So ultimately worrying about the power level of this tactic kind of feels like worrying about the power level of dual classing. Yeah, Dual Classing is super strong, but if you're playing a dual class character it's only because the GM is explicitly allowing it.
... For emphasis, while there's been a lot of talk over reaction trigger timing, I think it's also worth noting that there isn't even any clear guidance on outcomes either. There is zero rules guidance anywhere on how to resolve an action becoming illegal after it's already started (and to add another wrinkle to it, if we take the OP's position that reactions completely pre-empt their trigger, whether an action even takes place at all is also ambiguous) so basically anything the GM says is valid here.
The text on disrupting actions imo rather plainly spells out that actions are spent as they are locked in / committed. That detail of the up-front cost is all that's needed from that block of text.
I've not quoted it before, so here's more relevant text on the timing of events concern.
You can use only one single action, activity, or free action that doesn't have a trigger at a time. You must complete one before beginning another. For example, the Sudden Charge activity states you must Stride twice and then Strike, so you couldn't use an Interact action to open a door in the middle of the movement, nor could you perform part of the move, make your attack, and then finish the move.
Free actions with triggers and reactions work differently. You can use these whenever the trigger occurs, even if the trigger occurs in the middle of another action.
It looks pretty damn "solid RaW" that a trigger outright "pauses" whatever triggered it so that the entire Reaction plays out. Only after the Reaction is done, does the triggering action resume.
Yet one more example of this "pause reality so the Reaction can happen" already being normal in pf2:
Trigger An ally is about to use an action that requires an attack roll, targeting a creature within your weapon's first range increment.
Again, triggering after an attack has been committed, but before the roll is made, is a perfectly valid trigger, Ready or not.
.
.
We know that actions are spent upon initialization, and we have plenty of instruction and examples of Reactions pausing their triggers to play out before the triggering action can then resume.
If a melee swinger has someone Ready:Dodge outside of reach, this is not some rules gap black hole like some of the edge cases around magical familiars. The idea of there being some scary "rules gap" about how to adjudicate a Strike where the target poofs out of reach is... uh, a little comical? Like, do we really need that kind of minute maybe to be explicitly spelled out in order to rule that a whiff is a whiff?
The restrictions are found in GM Core as posted above by Baarogue and seem almost specifically intended to prevent this kind of more gamey application of Ready.
This really is not true.
I need to emphasize that the "presumed rule" about Ready being heavily restricted in its trigger is outright a telephone misreading / lie.
There is no way to read that text and conclude that there is some special power-limit being placed here. It is entirely about the player getting to write their own trigger, and making sure it follows proper logic on being a character-observable trigger. There is no "but you might want to be careful with this power" implication anywhere.
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.
The only kind of trigger that would need a GM to call for adjustment is one that breaks the character-observable principle. Nothing about timing, power concerns, etc. That pretend power-limiter never existed, no matter how many times someone's used it as an excuse.
.
.
I think that I might struggle to deal with a GM claiming that it would be RaW for them to say a Ready:Dodged attack was to be refunded, for it to require a roll chance to dodge or not, etc.
I'd much rather they be honest and say they were creating houserules because of gameplay concerns instead of them sacrificing credibility by clinging to the feigned claim of "just running it RaW".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The text on disrupting actions imo rather plainly spells out that actions are spent as they are locked in / committed. That detail of the up-front cost is all that's needed from that block of text.
Agreed. The trouble is Leap-as-a-reaction does not mention disrupting anything at all, so it's not helpful here.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is bit of text in Move Actions that Trigger Reactions that rather hard-confirms the Reaction(s) happen before the triggering action thanks to painting an exception.
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.
I'm a bit late to the party, I know.
This first sentence just screams 'specific defines general' fallacy.
You are also being a bit loose and vague on how you are applying that rule to your combat scenario. In the scenario the reaction with a trigger is the Leap that (you) the defending character is using. Since you are not the one doing the triggering of a reaction (your enemy is), how does this rule from Move apply? Strike is not even a Move action, much less one that doesn't move the attacker from their square.
This idea still runs into a bunch of RAW problems with rules adjudication.
As HammerJack pointed out, mid-swing isn't necessarily a valid trigger for Ready. It depends way too much on rules mechanics.
Ready still does not Disrupt the triggering action (Strike, in this case), so it's full effects should still mechanically take place. Allowing a Readied {insert Move action here} to prevent a Strike from landing after the attacker has paid the action cost for it is the very definition of Disrupt. How you narratively describe the Readied Leap interacting with the Strike from the enemy is up to you, but Ready does not Disrupt.
And that is in addition to the balance consideration problems that others have posted as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, discussions about this topic tends to come down to a "but RAW I can do this" vs the GM's "but I really hate it if you do it in MY game" argument.
That's also the full definition of my saying that 'RAW is a troll ruling'. If 'But it's RAW' is the only good thing about that ruling, then it isn't a good ruling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is the same as Stride. "I Ready for a specific stage of resolving an action, where the enemy has spent their action but not had an effect yet" has never been a valid Ready Trigger. Nothing different with Leap instead of Stride.
This is the relevant RAW. Triggers have to specify something a character can see and experience, not just a mechanical stage of resolving game actions.
Opponents are constantly moving and targeting, looking to find an opening to land an attack. You cannot trigger on things like ending movement or being targeted unless the feat or ability granting the reaction specifies it. Trying to argue around that is rules lawyering and meta-cheese.
Can you do some strategic things similar to this with Ready? Sure, if it's something legitimately observable by the character:
- "I run (stride) as soon as a foe gets within 10' of me." - Yes
- "I run/leap as soon as a foe gets within 5' of me." - Yes
(In both of these cases, the foe can continue their movement if they have some left.)
- "I run/leap as soon as a foe ends their movement in reach of me." - No, that's a player-observable game mechanic not a character-observable narrative moment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is the same as Stride. "I Ready for a specific stage of resolving an action, where the enemy has spent their action but not had an effect yet" has never been a valid Ready Trigger. Nothing different with Leap instead of Stride.This is the relevant RAW. Triggers have to specify something a character can see and experience, not just a mechanical stage of resolving game actions.
Opponents are constantly moving and targeting, looking to find an opening to land an attack. You cannot trigger on things like ending movement or being targeted unless the feat or ability granting the reaction specifies it. Trying to argue around that is rules lawyering and meta-cheese.
Can you do some strategic things similar to this with Ready? Sure, if it's something legitimately observable by the character:
- "I run (stride) as soon as a foe gets within 10' of me." - Yes
- "I run/leap as soon as a foe gets within 5' of me." - Yes
(In both of these cases, the foe can continue their movement if they have some left.)
- "I run/leap as soon as a foe ends their movement in reach of me." - No, that's a player-observable game mechanic not a character-observable narrative moment.
I do not fully agree here, and that is because there are reactions in the game that do let a reaction happen when movement ends. Examples are
Goblin Scuttle, which lets a Goblin Step when an ally ends a move action next to them.
Another example is the reaction that Medusa get, which lets them make a Strike with their snake hair if an enemy ends their turn next to them.
The first of the examples above triggers off of another creature (in that case, an ally), ending a move action adjacent to the goblin, and the second shows that ending a turn adjacent can trigger a reaction. There is nothing in the rules that even hints in any way that a Ready trigger of 'If any enemy ends a move action next to me, I do <whatever>." is not allowed. I mean, that is exactly (again with ally instead of enemy), what Goblin Scuttle allows!
To try to laser focus on a small a question as possible, lets drop Ready for a moment and get over the "timing issue"
The Gogiteth has:
Skittering Reposition [reaction] (move)
Trigger A creature that starts its move outside the gogiteth's reach moves into its reach;
Effect The gogiteth moves 10 feet. This does not trigger reactions.
So if a PC with equal reach to the Gogi moves in with a Stride, the Reaction triggers. It "pauses" the PC action right there, and skitters out of reach. If the PC still has movement left in that Stride, they can use it to chase after the Gogi finishes the Reaction and they "unpause".
But, if PC triggered the Reaction w/ their last 5 ft, or was using Step, then that Gogi is out of reach.
.
What if a PC uses 1A Skirmish Strike?
(1A Step + Strike)
They start the ability, Step inside Gogi's reach, and trigger the Reaction. The game "pauses" all the same, doesn't matter what the PC will soon be doing.
The Gogi skitters out of reach, and ends the Reaction. The PC "unpauses" but oh no, the Strike half of their action is no longer valid.
The Strike is lost. It's not "disrupted" but it whiffs, and is lost all the same. They still burned their once p turn flourish, etc. Once the action is committed, everything is spent up front.
As far as I can see, it would make no sense for a GM to invent houserules to allow a % chance to hit the Gogi anyways.
.
I'll end this here and wait for any objections to this. Does anyone think that I've stated how this Gogi Reaction Stride functions incorrectly?
I do think it's absolutely correct to limit Ready to character observable triggers.
While there are a few PC Reactions that do trigger off non-character knowledge, they are actually pretty dang rare.
When trying to massage AoN's search and look around, there are a lot of abilities that try to keep the game-mechanics as prerequisites, to keep it out of the reaction trigger. Things like "less then half", etc. And when triggers do have that language, it's still typically referencing the character's own HP, which they would be able to know.
.
I only really half-remember a single Reaction that I thought was "breaking" the idea of secret / non-visible info, where the GM prompting the player to use or pass on a the Reaction already gave away some Stealth related info that it should not have.
That's the kind of thing that the Ready sidebar is really seeking to avoid. If the player can talk it out and have the trigger make observable sense, then it's supposed to be valid.
And for me to only half-remember Paizo breaking this "observable" rule once ever, is actually a pretty dang good track record on their part.
(though half of this is due to me considering there to be an implied "that you can observe" clause in many Reactions, like the whole, "can't Attk o Opportunity a Disappeared caster you can't sense" prior example)
.
Back on topic, there are enough Reactions that trigger after an attack has been committed, but before it lands, for me to see that as 100% a valid trigger moment. Plenty of "but have not rolled" triggers.
There's really 0 text in the sidebar to indicate some stages of actions are "invalid" to use, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This tactic would completely shut down a solo melee enemy: PCs spread out, pelt the creature with one-action range attacks, and Ready to Leap if under attack. The creature Strides to one PC, Strikes (wasted), Strides again to the same PC or another. That PC Strides while all the others Strike, and then they all Ready to Leap again. Combat solved.
How I see it: committing to an action, interruptions, and stack-based resolution of effects are things I liked in MtG. Don't get me wrong, I like having solid rules even in RPGs like Pathfinder, but this kind of games are based on a narrative that I can't completely ignore: the sword doesn't just stop mid-air until you have finished running 25ft away.
So, if you set a trigger that amount to "when an enemy has committed to attacking me, but hasn't done it yet", I will call this already cited rule:
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.
and there will be no disruption involved unless there is (enemy incapacitated).
If you want to avoid being attacked, react when the enemy gets close instead. That's something that does work in some cases, just not everytime.
Is that Gogiteth Reaction being adjudicated correctly or not?
Would skittering beyond reach prevent the Strike half of Skirmish Strike a 1A "Striding Strike" from landing?
In your example, the Gogiteth wouldn't be able to use its reaction at all, as Stepping doesn't trigger reactions.
Ugh, that's a facepalm moment there, thanks both for catching that, and still discussing the intended message.
.
I guess I'll just reiterate that what triggers are or are not used in pre-written reactions is not a criterion for what triggers can be formulated for Ready. The two are entirely unrelated.
The GM Core section on Ready gives the GM wide latitude to decide which triggers they consider valid and for what reasons, and advises them to make use of that, both generally and in the specific outlined case of triggers that refer to game- rather than world concepts.
This is where we disagree.
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). [...]
Telling the player to designate a trigger directly instructs them to create a trigger that aligns and fits within the pf2 system. As in, create a trigger that conforms to the norms of that system.
Referencing "pre-written reactions" is the only way players can get an idea of how to use Ready.
In order for players be required to make some other, more specific, types of triggers, they would need specific instruction to do so.
Without any text explaining some special trigger guidelines, then the only guidelines are the default, to reference other Reactions and their triggers.
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.
That is the entire text that keeps getting mis-represented.
When you read that text with as blank a pre-conception as possible, there is 0 "but watch out for powerful triggers" implication in there.The entire thing, start to end, is entirely on the topic of making sure the trigger makes in-story sense, that it's something character-observable.
It absolutely is text that puts restrictions upon Ready's triggers, but it never had anything to do with balance / power concerns, nor limited Ready to conform to a narrow subset of trigger types. No "post roll only," etc.
.
And yes, "a foes begins a strike against me but hasn't rolled" is 100% a 'character-observable' trigger. While one might have balance concerns, it's imo approaching the label of dishonesty to claim that's not a valid trigger.
(again, many, many Reactions use this langue. The entire sub-category of ally-supporting Reactions require one to "pause" the action after the ally has committed, to then use the Reaction to then buff them, before the roll is made after that)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with yellowpete's answer. In case of an activity that allows you to Stride + Strike, when the gogiteth moves away and you don't have enough movement left to get it into your reach again, then you can't Strike it as part of the activity you were performing. You may be able to change course and Strike someone else, though.
This tactic would completely shut down a solo melee enemy: [...]
It would certainly be a valuable tactic, but Ready is mirrored, and foes are supposed to be intelligent enough to adapt.
After one Ready:Stride dodge, the foe can invalidate the action in a large number of ways. Everything from ranged attacks, to first Grapple, Trip, or anything that disables Stride, etc.
If the foes combine this with Ready themselves, a whole plethora of options open up.
Things like Ready: "as soon as they try to leave my reach, or my turn begins, I Grapple a creature" to give the scary boss a whole turn up close and personal with a freshly grabbed PC.
.
And yeah, the most "potent counterplay" of this is simply for foes to instead target the PCs that don't spend 2A to hunker down into a ready stance.
If anything, this actually swings pf2's issue / 'quirk' with action imbalance away from it's abusable norm and back toward a solo-boss's favor.
Every creature on the field needing to spend 2A to create a "Dodge safeguard" to avoid a solo boss's attacks means that the more PCs outnumber the solo boss, the more actions the player side of the fight would have to spend for this tactic.
Imagine if all the martials Ready:Stride a dodge, then the boss just rotates to face the lone 6HP caster who reeeally wants that 2A chunk, lol.
Trip, we don't have to reverse-engineer the "timing issue" of reactions. The rules I quoted about Actions with Triggers outright tells us. They're usable after their trigger occurs.
Yes, but for some reason, you claim the different steps within actions like Strike are invalid, and that the full sequence must be allowed to complete before a Reaction can be triggered.
Strike is not "atomic" and indivisible like that, we have plenty of examples demonstrating you can interrupt it at a few different points.The fact some have effects that apply retroactively isn't some key clue to how reactions work either.
No, and this is an important thing to refute. At no point is time required to flow backwards. The default functionality of Reactions is to hit the "pause" button at the moment in time their trigger specifies.
The Reaction then plays out to completion, then time resumes.There is no concept of a "reaction lockout" where a committed Strike must first be allowed to reach the roll step and complete before Reactions are turned on again.
Again, there are plenty of example Reactions that indicate a pre-roll step of an attack is a valid Trigger, aka a valid "pause" moment.
Trigger An enemy within your reach targets you or an ally with a weapon Strike
In order for Reactions like this one to be valid, it has to be base normal for triggers to hit "pause" at moments that are part way through attack Actions/Activities. After the commitment, but before the hit (roll).
Even ally helpers like Fake Out work like this. The default norm is to hit "pause" between commitment but before rolling, providing bonuses before rolls. No bizarre retro-causal buffing.
(After roll abilities are typically in the realm of fortune effects)
.
As far as I know, there is 0 textual reason to claim that a Reaction can only hit "pause" on an action like Strike before it's committed, or after is fully resolved (rolled). That's entirely an invention that does not exist in the text, and is in fact contradicted by it.
There are more then enough examples to demonstrate steps like targeting are valid points to interrupt with Reactions. No need to start talking crazy with special case retro-causality.
"A foe targets me with an attack" is a perfectly valid trigger.
Just -after that trigger- has been fired, when the Reaction then plays out, is at a point in time well before any roll has been made.
Please provide textual support for your claim that contradicts many, many reactions as they are written, including the above examples.