| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trigger An enemy within your reach targets you or an ally with a weapon StrikeIn 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). . .
False. In order for Reactions like that one to be valid, the description of the mechanics for those reaction says they are. That is what makes them valid, not any searching for a "base normal" they must conform to. They are Specific rules that override any General rule you're attempting to back into.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems this needs spelling out directly:
there is no ban on "using game mechanics" inside that text. I'm serious, read it again.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, [then] they need to adjust their action.
Uhm. Try reading this sentence again, quite a few times (emphasis added): "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."
This entire sentence is, emphatically, a "ban on 'using game mechanics' inside that text." The must-be/rather-than construction establishes a requirement ("must be") and an exclusion, or "ban" if you will ("rather than").
Now, if you can narratively describe an in-the-game-world, observable event or state created by a game mechanic (i.e. "rules concept that doesn't exist in-world") then you can use that to define your trigger.
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.
"A rules concept that doesn't exist in-world."
can be confusing due to the negative, but this is a reading comprehension issue.This entire sentence is, emphatically, a "ban on 'using game mechanics' inside that text." The must-be/rather-than construction establishes a requirement ("must be") and an exclusion, or "ban" if you will ("rather than").
That is incorrect.
It's a "ban" on Ready using triggers with: "rules concepts that do not exist in-world"
This is a subset of a subset.
Of the subset of "rules concepts," the subset within of "do not exist in-world" are banned.
.
This results in the exact same outcome as I stated previously.
Rules concepts that are world-observable, are fine.
.
It can be helpful to step back and think through the outcomes of your claims. In this case, it's a pretty short train of thought to realize it would result in utter nonsense for the game to ban the use of it's own mechanical language.
"I Ready to __ after they end their Stride"
"No, that's not allowed, you said Stride, that's a game mechanic."
"I Ready to ___ after they stop moving?"
"Just because they are not moving between squares, doesn't mean they are standing still like a statue, Player. What's your trigger?"
"When they move between squares, then stop moving between squares?"
"Squares is a game mechanic, the dirt is not painted with grid lines."
*table flip*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
There is no counterplay for a cairn wight (pre-remaster, I know, it's just the first example I found) facing a group of 1st level adventurers who exploit the ready-stride tactic.
Yes, all the characters need to play by the same tactic (boring, but better than the risk of being killed and raised as a minion, I guess), and at least two of them need to have a 1-action ranged attack.I have already described how savvy players would act. The monster has got no options against that, because it can't ever act in melee range of anyone, and the PCs won't get into its range voluntarily of course. All it can do is aoe frighten them, not a big deal.
What should be a scary monster (and a severe encounter) is going to helplessly chase those rookies as they run circles around it and whittle it down, with no chance of ever catching them. I don't like having a tactic that can be abused like that, in my game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
There is no counterplay for a cairn wight (pre-remaster, I know, it's just the first example I found) facing a group of 1st level adventurers who exploit the ready-stride tactic.
Yes, all the characters need to play by the same tactic (boring, but better than the risk of being killed and raised as a minion, I guess), and at least two of them need to have a 1-action ranged attack.
I have already described how savvy players would act. The monster has got no options against that, because it can't ever act in melee range of anyone, and the PCs won't get into its range voluntarily of course. All it can do is aoe frighten them,...
The Carin Wight could just use the same tactic against them. Have it Ready an Action to Stride when an enemy uses a ranged attack against it. Unless you're having people fight the wight in the open field (instead of the cramped mausoleums and cairns they're supposed to be in), they will quickly close the distance on someone outside their turn, leaving them in someone's face to use 3 actions to strike-pursue-strike again.
Alternatively, it moves into range and readies to Grapple or Trip for when the enemy moves away from the wight (or when they attack, or whichever other trigger you prefer). Once immobilised, it can just maintain grapple and wail on them with its sword. Once tripped, a PC can basically no longer do their combo.
+12 Athletics means landing the grapple or trip is super easy, as is keeping the grapple going with it's first action (or tripping a character again) is almost a given, and then it has two sword strikes at +9 and +4, which against a level 1 PC is more than enough (especially since a succesful strike is likely to make them Drained 1 and make grappling easier) when they're off-guard.
If it's facing a party of level 1s in a confined space, they'll be dead sooner rather than later if they don't adapt. Remember the thing is Int +1, it's likely smarter than many members of the party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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."A rules concept that doesn't exist in-world."
can be confusing due to the negative, but this is a reading comprehension issue.
Correct. It is a reading comprehension issue. Yours.
This entire sentence is, emphatically, a "ban on 'using game mechanics' inside that text." The must-be/rather-than construction establishes a requirement ("must be") and an exclusion, or "ban" if you will ("rather than").That is incorrect.
It's a "ban" on Ready using triggers with: "rules concepts that do not exist in-world"
This is a subset of a subset.
Of the subset of "rules concepts," the subset within of "do not exist in-world" are banned.
Nope. It is not a subset of a subset. It is a ban on "rules concepts" because "[they] do not exist in-world." I suspect the usage of "that" instead of "which" or "because" is what is tripping you up Trip.
The phrase, "that doesn't exist in-world," is emphasizing why rules concepts are proscribed: because they are not observable. They are not observable because they do not exist in-world.
This results in the exact same outcome as I stated previously.
Rules concepts that are world-observable, are fine.
There are no in-world observable rules concepts. That's the point. There are in-world observable effects of rules concepts, but there are no rules concepts, no game mechanics, that observable by the character.
In this case, it's a pretty short train of thought to realize it would result in utter nonsense for the game to ban the use of it's own mechanical language.
Nah. It squares with the concept of meta-gaming. Unless you are breaking the Fourth Wall, you have two distinct sets of perspectives at the table: you, as the player, who is watching the events unfold from a (nearly) omniscient third-person perspective; and your character's perspective, who is experiencing the events as they play out, first-hand (and with limited knowledge).
It makes perfect sense, then, for a mechanic dealing with what the character knows or is able to observe to "ban the use of [the game's] own mechanical language" since the character is ignorant of the game's mechanical language. Ready is one of those mechanics and it instructs the player to define a trigger that is limited to only that which the character can perceive.
"I Ready to __ after they end their Stride"
"No, that's not allowed, you said Stride, that's a game mechanic."
I get it, you're attempting reductio ad absurdum.
That example is, technically, correct. However, at least around the tables I play with, it would be acceptable shorthand for...
"I Ready to ___ after they stop moving?"However, your absurdist response:
"Just because they are not moving between squares, doesn't mean they are standing still like a statue, Player. What's your trigger?"
Is just that, absurdist. "Uhhhh. They're waving their hands so they are ... technically ... still moving," is an absolute b~+$+ response and you know it. If that's how you and your tables play, I feel sorry for you. Truly. But I highly doubt that there are many GMs that are that absurd.
If you literally re-write the RaW to inject that "because" only then will it conform with your preconception.
Yet, you still do not have an answer for this creating an absurd play situation where players have to dance around using any of the vernacular the system has been teaching them. It is just as an absurd claim today as it was yesterday.
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 first half, the "What the trigger needs to be" portion has zero mention of "not being a rules mechanic"
it imposes that the trigger must both "happen in the game world" and "is observable to the character"A Player setting a trigger off a foe Strike meets both of those criteria.
It is only in the second half, which is *single* extra condition, where the idea of rules concepts is mentioned.
~"the trigger must *not* be a rules concept that *doesn't* exist in-world"
This is one extra "check" against the trigger.
Strike is a rules concept, yes,
Strike is something that *does* exists in-world.
Therefore, it does not fall afoul of this extra "not be" check, and is valid.
The use of a solely game mechanic term "Strike" does not invalidate the trigger.
.
No matter how much you may wish it, "rather than a rules concept that doesn’t exist in-world." is the RaW, not "because they don't exist in-world"
It makes perfect sense, then, for a mechanic dealing with what the character knows or is able to observe to "ban the use of [the game's] own mechanical language" since the character is ignorant of the game's mechanical language. Ready is one of those mechanics and it instructs the player to define a trigger that is limited to only that which the character can perceive.
This is nonsense. The Player is setting the trigger, and while it does needs to be within the Character's ability to observe, the fictional character is not the one playing the game! The entire conceptual function of a game system is to enable player-side mechanical language to translate into in-story actions with great efficacy. This means making use of that constructed mechanical language whenever you can do so. Not randomly banning it for this one single action in the whole system, for no reason. It is absurd this needs to be said, but you still can preserve in-story logic when speaking with mechanical language.
.
The text clearly instructs the GM to ask for clarification if they can't visualize the Player's trigger in action. This itself reveals that it is normal and expected to use mechanical language in the trigger!
That uncertainty can only happen when the Player uses mechanical language and sometimes it's fine, and sometimes the GM has to sanity check the Player, with a "hold on, how could your PC observe that?"
It is very obvious that if the Player was required to never use mechanical language, this text would be written very differently. The Player's trigger would never be a grey that requires investigation, it would either use, or not use, mechanical language and the GM would know instantly.
That certainly sounds like a more engaging and fun time than the nuke/shoot/stab everything until it dies norm that is so easy to fall into.
A raised sword, turning the body to put power behind the swing, where the eye line is pointed, etc.
It would be neat to use Feint as a false trigger, but yeah, this really is not an unreasonable thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...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.
There is no counterplay for a cairn wight (pre-remaster, I know, it's just the first example I found) facing a group of 1st level adventurers who exploit the ready-stride tactic.
Yes, all the characters need to play by the same tactic (boring, but better than the risk of being killed and raised as a minion, I guess), and at least two of them need to have a 1-action ranged attack.
I have already described how savvy players would act. The monster has got no options against that, because it can't ever act in melee range of anyone, and the PCs won't get into its range voluntarily of course. All it
In addition to everything that TheFinish said, and it was all very well-written and totally correct, there is counterplay:
The Monster leaves! If it is a solo-type monster, it comes back when the party is fighting something else, or if it's not, it gets some friends. Monsters do not have to blindly fight to the death. Just like PCs, they can, and should, adapt to what the PCs do.
I also don't think most players would do this for more than a round or two. They'd get bored, and it doesn't help them end the fight.
So, in the split-instant - not even a split-second - between them targeting you and rolling, your character can Leap all the way out of their reach to avoid the attack altogether. [...]
As a teenager this was an absolutely normal thing on the wrestling team, where you are already as close as you can be to your opponent without being tied up in an active struggle.
You wait for the other guy to commit to a move, then shoot under it / another pre-planned counter.
If you do not wait for them to commit to a move of their own, then they will sprawl against your attack and reverse it against you. At best, your failed takedown has led to a struggle where the other guy has an advantage.
My own success was in large part due to being able to snag their elbow with a high degree of control on my way in.
When their sprawl should have worked if their weight was in their hand pushing upon me, they were instead unbalanced and lifted a bit by that elbow. I honestly struggled more with getting opponents on the ground after I got behind them and locked up than with the the "getting behind them step," which was seen as a bit backward.
The only alternative to waiting for them to do something first was to make a non-committal disruption, like trying to yank their wrist sideways hard enough that they would need to reposition a foot. Though, this is exactly the kind of trigger the other guy might be waiting for.
The notion of just going for it without first preventing the dodge/counter was so unsuccessful, that high school freshmen figured it out before their first season was over.
.
Personal anecdote aside, it is very telling that a RaW reading is repeatedly getting derailed with claims of being unrealistic.
(To reiterate, I fully support GMs who have found this disruptive to game balance and edited the Ready action.
It is also a personal bugbear of mine when opinions like "overpowered" are the motivation behind making false factual claims about the literal meaning of text.)
Ironically enough, 2 seconds for a single Strike is a hell of a long time in sports.
Boxers make wrestlers look like slow motion ballet dancers.
.
So, yes, sacrificing your current flow of activity to instead ready for a counter, and actually avoiding the blow on reaction, is genuinely realistic.
If you put two people in a cage that are focused on the encounter, it is surprisingly hard to get a clean hit on someone who is just trying to evade. Wrestling as a concept is kinda built around forcing that, and "stalling" is perhaps the most common penalty because of how easy (and desirable) it is to do so.
Yeah, if one side has a point lead, it's so incredibly easy to Ready and evade, that it's just banned.
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...
It would be an interesting form of kiting. I already kite on my monks. I usually take Rogue Archetype mobility, then move in, attack, then move out. Monk speed makes it so most creatures must spend two actions to reach the monk allowing them only one attack action. The mobility eliminates any Reactive Strikes for movement.
I think if you're willing to commit the action resources to do the Leap, you should be able to do it.
You can model it a bit off the spell Zephyr Slip, which I started using. Another reason why lower level slots are valuable for defense. It's a spell that does what you want to do for the cost of a reaction and a 4th level spell slot. Pretty nice for getting the enemy to trade move actions for attack actions.
Well no, Zephyr Slip doesn't do what Trip wants to do. It triggers off movement. What Trip wants to do is to trigger off a specific point in time within an enemy's Strike, namely after they've committed to it but before the dice are rolled. He then wants the Strike to auto-miss, still costing the action and MAP.
That's why I said model this type of action. The enemy is moving to you to hit you, not stand there looking at you. So you use Zephyr Slip when they move to precede their strike forcing them to move again to hit you or if at max move, they don't get to strike.
That seems to be what Trip wants to do. He wants to leap away just before the enemy swings, which would key off their movement to get in range to swing.
Otherwise, there are already abilities that are reactions to avoid hits and they only provide circumstance bonuses to AC or some damage resistance. They don't allow you to completely evade the blow.
Zephyr Slip works off movement, so you slip away before they swing completely evading the attack and forcing the use of additional movement.
That is what would happen if they player leapt away before the swing forcing the enemy to move into position again.
Yup, and setting the trigger of an incoming attack vs movement would be a gamble of a different type. Trading one risk for another.
If you set the trigger for movement, that's going to trigger more often, but may not deny the foe enough actions.
If you set it for an attack, you are predicting a more specific future. This could lead to bigger reward, ooor they could do something else and your 2A +R will be wasted.
I kept an eye out for the opportunity to do this Ready:Dodge during my Fri & Sat sessions, and never once had enough confidence in the foe's next turn to commit to it.
(and it's just really expensive to attempt)
Right, just letting you know that while you professed agreement with Trip, what you're saying is actually in contradiction with his central thesis in this thread: That such a Readied action, with a trigger cleverly formulated by the player, would resolve in the middle of the attacker's Strike action and essentially force them to waste it (while increasing MAP as usual) instead of just costing them one more action for additional movement.
I don't think an ability leaping prior to their attack would work. These abilities are already in place. The only thing that would work is what they have in place which is an ability that triggers when they move into attack position.
There are already abilities that allow you to attempt to dodge, some with an move. These abilities generally provide a circumstance bonus to AC or damage resistance. I don't think an ability to leap away as they swing would do any better than the abilities that already exist to accomplish this end.
Reactive Strike that keys off movement would go off before you move. Thus leaping away from an enemy that has already moved into position and is taking the swing would likely only provide a circumstance bonus to AC and would trigger any Reactive strikes for movement before you moved for the same reason Trip can leap away before the strike on the target's turn: the reactive strike goes off before the action that activates it like movement.
That's why if a player attempted this, it would have to key off movement or I would model the result off an existing ability that does something similar like Nimble Dodge giving a circumstance bonus to AC against the strike.
I've already mentioned how Disarming Interception from Spirit Warrior reacts to the targeting of a Strike before it lands, so here's another new example.
Guardian's Intercept Attack involves reacting to an incoming damage bit of damage where the PC can see the triggering action begin, and on reaction, they dash 15ft across the battlefield to take the hit in place of the protected ally. That's a lot more difficult a task than just getting out of the way yourself, lol. Especially on raw reaction, and not after prepping for the dash via a 2A Ready.
.
In my opinion, it's perfectly in line with pf2's norms for 1A [Re]actions to fully fire and complete before a Strike lands.
I doubt too many people would take issue with a Ready:Shove pushing a foe outside melee range, causing a whiff. That is already veeeery close to Disarming Intercept in form, just with a different skill and needing the 2A Ready.
There really is just something particularly "feels wrong" about Stride and movement itself feeling like it should chronologically just require more time than it does.
And if a GM decides that chunked movement specifically
(where the actor makes each 5ft chunk of movement individually, potentially changing the Stride in response to a new development)
only has the first 5ft occur before the triggering action then completes, that's a choice the GM can make.
I've already mentioned how Disarming Interception from Spirit Warrior reacts to the targeting of a Strike before it lands, so here's another new example.
Guardian's Intercept Attack involves reacting to an incoming damage bit of damage where the PC can see the triggering action begin, and on reaction, they dash 15ft across the battlefield to take the hit in place of the protected ally. That's a lot more difficult a task than just getting out of the way yourself, lol. Especially on raw reaction, and not after prepping for the dash via a 2A Ready.
.
In my opinion, it's perfectly in line with pf2's norms for 1A [Re]actions to fully fire and complete before a Strike lands.
I doubt too many people would take issue with a Ready:Shove pushing a foe outside melee range, causing a whiff. That is already veeeery close to Disarming Intercept in form, just with a different skill and needing the 2A Ready.
There really is just something particularly "feels wrong" about Stride and movement itself feeling like it should chronologically just require more time than it does.
And if a GM decides that chunked movement specifically
(where the actor makes each 5ft chunk of movement individually, potentially changing the Stride in response to a new development)
only has the first 5ft occur before the triggering action then completes, that's a choice the GM can make.
This is going to come down to what the DM thinks. I tend to not like to make something that doesn't require a feat more powerful than a feat. I would likely model it off a similar feat.
It's too much to assume the person doing the pushing is faster than the person doing the striking. So we have instead an abstract system for this kind of action that would have to take into account what similar feats can do. Most of what I've seen is a DR or a bonus to AC rather than forcing a wasted strike. That's how I'd rule.
This use of ready is very table and DM dependent.
The Carin Wight could just use the same tactic against them. Have it Ready an Action to Stride when an enemy uses a ranged attack against it. Unless you're having people fight the wight in the open field (instead of the cramped mausoleums and cairns they're supposed to be in), they will quickly close the distance on someone outside their turn, leaving them in someone's face to use 3 actions to strike-pursue-strike again.
Alternatively, it moves into range and readies to Grapple or Trip for when the enemy moves away from the wight (or when they attack, or whichever other trigger you prefer). Once immobilised, it can just maintain grapple and wail on them with its sword. Once tripped, a PC can basically no longer do their combo.
+12 Athletics means landing the grapple or trip is super easy, as is keeping the grapple going with it's first action (or tripping a character again) is almost a given, and then it has two sword strikes at +9 and +4, which against a level 1 PC is more than enough (especially since a succesful strike is likely to make them Drained 1 and make grappling easier) when they're off-guard.
If it's facing a party of level 1s in a confined space, they'll be dead sooner rather than later if they don't adapt. Remember the thing is Int +1, it's likely smarter than many members of the party.
Sorry for the late reply.
Let me clear the cramped space issue first. There's no need for an open space, or even a big room. Being able to Stride (or Leap) two squares away from the wight is enough, so I think a 4x4 room would suffice. A simple corridor also works, if it's long enough - in that case the group doesn't run in circles, but retreats one or two squares per turn: the enemy has to stop at the foremost PC, who will Stride behind the others when attacked.
Let's analyze Readying to Stride when attacked at range. The enemy would come close to the PC, and stay there because it's not their turn. It can't make its Final Spite attack in case it gets dropped, because it's out of reactions.
What it would accomplish is that the PC wouldn't be able to employ the tactic again that turn, being left with two actions only, so I guess that the wight would be able to strike a single time next turn (as you say, as it Strikes(wasted)-pursues-Strikes). All in all, by playing like this, the wight will be able to Strike once (with -5? Does the wasted Strike apply MAP? Interesting question) every two rounds. Granted, the PCs aren't expressing their best potential either.
Readying to Grapple or Trip could work when the PC doesn't have space to Step away (another question arises - would you let a readied action with a trigger on movement apply in case of a Step?). Again, it only puts the wight in a condition to maybe do something next turn.
But I have to admit that there are, indeed, things that the wight could do. Still, I think the way I rule simultaneous actions is more consistent, and better for the game overall.
Sorry for the late reply.
Let me clear the cramped space issue first. There's no need for an open space, or even a big room. Being able to Stride (or Leap) two squares away from the wight is enough, so I think a 4x4 room would suffice. A simple corridor also works, if it's long enough - in that case the group doesn't run in circles, but retreats one or two squares per turn: the enemy has to stop at the foremost PC, who will Stride behind the others when attacked.
Let's analyze Readying to Stride when attacked at range. The enemy would come close to the PC, and stay there because it's not their turn. It can't make its Final Spite attack in case it gets dropped, because it's out of reactions.
What it would accomplish is that the PC wouldn't be able to employ the tactic again that turn, being left with two actions only, so I guess that the wight would be able to strike a single time next turn (as you say, as it Strikes(wasted)-pursues-Strikes). All in all, by playing like this, the wight will be able to Strike once (with -5? Does the wasted Strike apply MAP? Interesting question) every two rounds. Granted, the PCs aren't expressing their best potential either.Readying to Grapple or Trip could work when the PC doesn't have space to Step away (another question arises - would you let a readied action with a trigger on movement apply in case of a Step?). Again, it only puts the wight in a condition to maybe do something next turn.
But I have to admit that there are, indeed, things that the wight could do. Still, I think the way I rule simultaneous actions is more consistent, and better for the game overall.
A minor quibble, but you need at least a 6x6 room for this tactic to "work" properly. In a 5x5 Room, the Wight can reach anywhere in the room from anywhere else in the room (barring the party landing a movement speed penalty on it), so the party is in a really horrible spot. It's even worse than that in a 4x4 room, because if the Wight stays in the center squares, it only needs to Step once to have one or more party members in reach.
Firstly, and maybe I wasn't clear, the Wight needn't stride towards whoever attacked it. The Wight can just keep pressure on one person at a time, ensuring it's always adjacent to it at the start of the Wight's turn, which is the only thing the Wight needs to do.
To whit, there is no reason why the Wight needs to Strike-Pursue-Strike. It can just Strike-Pursue-Grapple. The fist is Agile, which means the Wight is taking this Grapple at +8. The highest Fortitude DC a 1st level PC can have is 18 (CON KAS at +4, Expert Fort). That's a 10+ to Grab, at the hardest, but it's going to be much lower in practice. If the Wight is gunning for a cloth caster, it's going to be way lower (in the 5-6+ range, depending on Fort).
And once it lands the Grab, escaping it is very hard for 1st level PCs. The best Escape you'll have at Level 1 will come from a Fighter, and it'll be at +9 (+4 KAS, +4 Expert on the Unarmed attack, +1 level) vs an Athletics DC of 22. That's a 13+ on a Fighter, 15+ on most other martials, and 16+ on Casters with +3 DEX/+3 STR.
If the Wight does grab, then the grabbed PC is in serious trouble. If they get lucky and Escape in one action, they can keep their tactic going at the cost of not doing anything to the Wight for one turn. If they don't Escape in the first try though, their chances plummet and they can no longer use their tactic. If they can't escape at all, the Wight has a whole turn to wail on them, including just another Grab, at a much higher modifier (with its full +12, the Wight is looking at 6+ on a Kineticist, less on everyone else). Even if they do escape on the 2nd try, the best they can do is 1 stride, so the Wight can keep up with Stride-Grab-Strike.
Time is not on the PCs side here if the other 3 stick to ranged attacks. Especially because if the Wight kills someone, the party's going to have to deal with another Wight in d4 rounds. Not to mention hitting AC 20 at range without off-guard and such is not easy for Level 1s. And the Wight still has 67 HP for people to chunk through.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I meant a 4x4 room in the scenario where the wight doesn't Ready its actions. As long as there is a Step or Straide it has to make to reach anyone (and there is, PCs can just stride from one side of the room to the other), the basic tactic works.
If the wight uses Ready (to Stride or to Grapple), space becomes less important, unless it's slower than the party.
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.
The exception you are referring to is:
"If you use a move action but don't move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability."
The sentence it is an exception to is the one directly before it:
"Each time you exit a square within a creature's reach, your movement triggers those reactions and free actions (although no more than once per move action for a given reacting creature)."
It's saying that move actions where you don't leave the square are treated differently from move actions where you do leave the square. The exception is here so that Reactive Strike can still function against Stand or in-place Fly.
This doesn't mean it's an exception to all triggers other than in-place move actions, so we can't derive an assumed rule about all reactions occurring before the trigger from this alone.
Reactions occur when their triggers happen, but the rules have historically been unclear about what that means. Fortunately, remaster added this sentence to Limitations on Triggers:
"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."
If reactions occur when their trigger occurs, and the trigger is an action, then the GM must determine whether it makes more sense for the reaction or the trigger to resolve first. In many cases, the trigger happening first defeats the purpose of the reaction, so the GM will rule that the reaction resolves first. But it's not a guarantee.
P1: I Stride up to the ogre. I Ready to Stride if he swings at me.
P2: I Stride to the ogre. I Strike with flanking. I Stride away.
P3: I do the same.
P4: I do the same.
GM: How obvious is it that P1 intends to run away?
P1: Quite obvious, since I literally am poised to run away.
GM: The ogre Strides to P4 and Strikes. Does a 28 hit?
If this strategy isn't allowed, P1 would likely Ready to Stride as soon as all his allies are done flanking, with the same effect.
Using the strategy is an improvement though, since the ogre might automiss a Strike if it fails to realize what P1 is doing. Or it might use an action to Sense Motive.
But if this strategy is easy enough, it might be so common that even an ogre wouldn't need to Sense Motive to see through it.
This is going to come down to what the DM thinks. I tend to not like to make something that doesn't require a feat more powerful than a feat.
And what feat would that be? What feat is weaker than spending two actions to prepare a reaction that the enemy might not even trigger?
I'm probably not going to allow this strategy either way though. Viable or not, this seems very obnoxious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is going to come down to what the DM thinks. I tend to not like to make something that doesn't require a feat more powerful than a feat.And what feat would that be? What feat is weaker than spending two actions to prepare a reaction that the enemy might not even trigger?
I'm probably not going to allow this strategy either way though. Viable or not, this seems very obnoxious.
Nearly every reaction is one that might not trigger. That is not the part I'm concerned with.
My concern is this would be better than feats built to do this very thing. There is no feat that allows you to completely evade an attack with a reaction causing the action to be used up in the attempt. I would not allow a ready action to do more than a feat.
I would model any request by a player off a similar action or feat. That would likely mean if a player wanted to do this, I would give them a circumstance bonus to AC or maybe damage reduction. It is a high action cost, but it's also something attempted with no feat to do the same thing. I would prefer not to devalue feats that do a similar thing.
This is going to come down to what the DM thinks. I tend to not like to make something that doesn't require a feat more powerful than a feat.And what feat would that be? What feat is weaker than spending two actions to prepare a reaction that the enemy might not even trigger?
I'm probably not going to allow this strategy either way though. Viable or not, this seems very obnoxious.
Is it obnoxious? In the end, if a player does this, they are spending *two* actions *and* a reaction to do....nothing.
They are not doing damage.
They are not hindering the enemy in any real way.
They are not protecting allies.
They are not taking an action to end the fight.
The only way that this can be obnoxious is if the GM always has the adversary Stride up, miss the Strike thanks to the reaction, and Stride again, and if the GM does that, well, then, yes, it would be.
In fact, if the creature has Reach, it could actually engage with this by Striding in such a way to get the PC in a corner and attack from Reach so that no matter where the PC managed to Leap to, they would still be in Reach and would get nothing from the lost actions.
If one of my PCs asked to do that, I'd say "Are you sure?", and if I was told "Yes.", I'd say "Ok." But, at most, it would work once, in a fight, before adversaries figured it out and started to use it to their advantage, just like PCs would adapt to tactics used against them.
Good point.
This is going to come down to what the DM thinks. I tend to not like to make something that doesn't require a feat more powerful than a feat.And what feat would that be? What feat is weaker than spending two actions to prepare a reaction that the enemy might not even trigger?
I'm probably not going to allow this strategy either way though. Viable or not, this seems very obnoxious.
Nearly every reaction is one that might not trigger. That is not the part I'm concerned with.
My concern is this would be better than feats built to do this very thing. There is no feat that allows you to completely evade an attack with a reaction causing the action to be used up in the attempt. I would not allow a ready action to do more than a feat.
I would model any request by a player off a similar action or feat. That would likely mean if a player wanted to do this, I would give them a circumstance bonus to AC or maybe damage reduction. It is a high action cost, but it's also something attempted with no feat to do the same thing. I would prefer not to devalue feats that do a similar thing.
So you are concerned about this being better than feats that do the same thing, but you're also saying that there are no feats that do the same thing? Or are you saying that because there is no feat that allows automatically dodging an attack, it would be overpowered to let any player do it ever, even if it costs the player their entire turn?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you are concerned about this being better than feats that do the same thing, but you're also saying that there are no feats that do the same thing? Or are you saying that because there is no feat that allows automatically dodging an attack, it would be overpowered to let any player do it ever, even if it costs the player their entire turn?This is going to come down to what the DM thinks. I tend to not like to make something that doesn't require a feat more powerful than a feat.And what feat would that be? What feat is weaker than spending two actions to prepare a reaction that the enemy might not even trigger?
I'm probably not going to allow this strategy either way though. Viable or not, this seems very obnoxious.
Nearly every reaction is one that might not trigger. That is not the part I'm concerned with.
My concern is this would be better than feats built to do this very thing. There is no feat that allows you to completely evade an attack with a reaction causing the action to be used up in the attempt. I would not allow a ready action to do more than a feat.
I would model any request by a player off a similar action or feat. That would likely mean if a player wanted to do this, I would give them a circumstance bonus to AC or maybe damage reduction. It is a high action cost, but it's also something attempted with no feat to do the same thing. I would prefer not to devalue feats that do a similar thing.
I am saying there is no feat I know of that does this: the automatic miss on a reaction that also uses up the action with no failure chance.
Yes. I'm saying I wouldn't allow it regardless if it costs the player their entire turn because actions should not outdo feats. There is nothing that says you can dodge a strike by leaping away and make the enemy use up the action with a guaranteed chance of success no matter how many actions you use. The action cost is irrelevant. I only care that other abilities of this kind don't exist or none that I know of.
Nimble Dodge adds a circumstance bonus.
Flashy Dodge/Nimble Roll, the upgrade to Nimble Dodge, allows you to move if the attack fails or you make the reflex save.
Zephyr Slip keys off movement.
Unless the player can show me some rule or ability similar in nature I can model it off with a guaranteed chance of success doing what they want to do, I wouldn't go with it.
It seems if Paizo wanted abilities where you dodge automatically by leaping away while at the same time causing the enemy to lose the action, they would have put them in the game.
In the abstract, if someone was using 2 actions to ready to leap away dodging a blow from an enemy, I would likely give them a circumstance bonus to their AC. I don't know we would assume the PC is fast enough to dodge the blow automatically or time it perfectly when abilities built to do this don't. This is an abstract game, so the ability would likely give a chance to dodge a blow but not guarantee it modeling the inexact nature of timing a dodge against an enemy trying to strike you.
This isn't a game that gets that exact. I don't know why every player spending the same actions would have the same skill to perfectly leap away avoiding the blow with a 100 percent success rate even if the trigger activates.
The system considers rolls "fun," so the "it just works" style of abilities are more scarce. And of that subset, those that directly interact w/ strikes are that much more rare.
It's a bit of an odd comparison, but Timber Sentinel is a L1 feat, is 2A, "just works," and typically has waaay more HP than a Strike of it's level.
If the foe Strikes after the prep, then the tree "reacts" to nullify the strike* with caveats (such as not taxing the PC's 1 R, the "whose allies" ruling, 1 min duration, etc.).
While still apples to oranges, it's a surprisingly apt point of comparison. Moreover, it demonstrates that kind of potency does indeed exist in the system. It's kinda, uh, way better than this Ready:dodge in most use-cases (though it requires the spend of a class feat).
.
I don't remember what it's name is, as it's not been on one of my PCs, but there's also a "downgrade a crit into hit" Reaction.
This also "just works," and while more rare to trigger, it does mechanically nullify one Strike from the equation with no need to prep, and in the exact context you'd really like to not have a dmg spike.
The system considers rolls "fun," so the "it just works" style of abilities are more scarce. And of that subset, those that directly interact w/ strikes are that much more rare.
It's a bit of an odd comparison, but Timber Sentinel is a L1 feat, is 2A, "just works," and typically has waaay more HP than a Strike of it's level.
If the foe Strikes after the prep, then the tree "reacts" to nullify the strike* with caveats (such as not taxing the PC's 1 R, the "whose allies" ruling, 1 min duration, etc.).
While still apples to oranges, it's a surprisingly apt point of comparison. Moreover, it demonstrates that kind of potency does indeed exist in the system. It's kinda, uh, way better than this Ready:dodge in most use-cases (though it requires the spend of a class feat).
.
I don't remember what it's name is, as it's not been on one of my PCs, but there's also a "downgrade a crit into hit" Reaction.This also "just works," and while more rare to trigger, it does mechanically nullify one Strike from the equation with no need to prep, and in the exact context you'd really like to not have a dmg spike.
I don't consider that an apt comparison as the Timber Sentinel can be crit and if the strike breaches it, you take the damage for anything that bypasses it. It is also limited use and requires heightening to be more effective against higher level enemies.
Even the reducing the crit to a hit ability means you still take normal damage including all riders. It requires a feat. One of the feats I know that does this requires your armor break.
There is a cost for using the action other than the actions invested. It shows more that doing something like you want to do is very costly in actions and resources. A strike from any level enemy being used up while also not doing damage for only an action resource cost that can be used an unlimited number of times per is a very powerful ability. I wouldn't allow a player to do this without a feat that allowed it.
The fact that there are so few abilities that do anything of this kind without some kind of cost whether a feat investment, spell slot, or commitment is to me more proof it should likely not be allowed for just an action cost.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would allow a readied "run away if monster comes close enough to strike". It is costly with 2 actions and a reaction, not guaranteed to trigger (enemy approaches somebody else), not guaranteed to succeed (enemy might have reactive strike or similar, or can use another action to follow you) and probably rather niche.
Unless a group tries to solve each encounter with something like that, it looks like a smart idea in some rather rare cases, not a "i win" button that can be pressed every time.
I don't consider that an apt comparison as the Timber Sentinel can be crit and if the strike breaches it, you take the damage for anything that bypasses it. It is also limited use and requires heightening to be more effective against higher level enemies.
Even the reducing the crit to a hit ability means you still take normal damage including all riders. It requires a feat. One of the feats I know that does this requires your armor break.
There is a cost for using the action other than the actions invested. It shows more that doing something like you want to do is very costly in actions and resources. A strike from any level enemy being used up while also not doing damage for only an action resource cost that can be used an unlimited number of times per is a very powerful ability. I wouldn't allow a player to do this without...
Now hold on. Timber Sentinel does heighten the tree and doesn't appear to have a Frequemcy limit. There's even a clause for what happens if you spam it every turn.
And Uncanny Dodge, the crit reducing ability, and most defensive reactions, still have an advantage over this Ready strat in that they don't cost two actions to set up. Even breaking your own armor pales in comparison to that (just Repair it later). Actually, scratch that, breaking your armor is pretty dangerous, but spending two actions is still a big deal.
I think most rogues would rather Feint, Strike, Strike again, and Uncanny Dodge than just Strike and wait for the enemy to attack them (which might not happen) so they can run away.
But the fact that no feat exists to completely no-sell Strikes does lead some credence to the argument against this strat. If it was intended, you'd think it'd come up more. Like a feat that lets you Ready to Stride out of reach with a reduced initial action cost.
There's also the Aid reaction, which requires a 1 action setup and only gives a +1 circumstance bonus on one check (or more on a crit) with an increasing DC with each attempt. But the power gap between a single action and a two action activity is enormous, so I'm not sure how relevant this is.
I don't consider that an apt comparison as the Timber Sentinel can be crit and if the strike breaches it, you take the damage for anything that bypasses it. It is also limited use and requires heightening to be more effective against higher level enemies.
Even the reducing the crit to a hit ability means you still take normal damage including all riders. It requires a feat. One of the feats I know that does this requires your armor break.
There is a cost for using the action other than the actions invested. It shows more that doing something like you want to do is very costly in actions and resources. A strike from any level enemy being used up while also not doing damage for only an action resource cost that can be used an unlimited number of times per is a very powerful ability. I wouldn't allow a player to do this without...
Now hold on. Timber Sentinel does heighten the tree and doesn't appear to have a Frequemcy limit. There's even a clause for what happens if you spam it every turn.
And Uncanny Dodge, the crit reducing ability, and most defensive reactions, still have an advantage over this Ready strat in that they don't cost two actions to set up.
Even breaking your own armor pales in comparison to that (just Repair it later).Actually, scratch that, breaking your armor is pretty dangerous, but spending two actions is still a big deal.I think most rogues would rather Feint, Strike, Strike again, and Uncanny Dodge than just Strike and wait for the enemy to attack them (which might not happen) so they can run away.
But the fact that no feat exists to completely no-sell Strikes does lead some credence to the argument against this strat. If it was intended, you'd think it'd come up more. Like a feat that lets you Ready to Stride out of reach with a reduced initial action cost.
There's also the Aid reaction, which requires a 1 action setup and only gives a +1 circumstance bonus on one check (or more on a crit) with an...
Timber Sentinel allows one tree at a time. Requires two actions. And the person must remain adjacent to the tree limiting their movement. It doesn't waste the action. The tree acts as damage absorption. Which is another reason why I would not allow an ability to use up an attack and completely avoid.
Protector Tree proves more that there is nothing to avoid attacks. It can be crit. Which at higher levels can be quite a lot of damage eating maybe one blow. The dragons my PCs were fighting just yesterday were doing 100 plus points on a crit. A dragon would crit an AC 10 on a 1. If they tripped through the tree, the damage goes against the target.
It's more proof that Paizo doesn't put abilities in the game that can be used an unlimited number of times that cause a swing to miss using it up for any action cost.
They give damage resistance or a circumstance bonus to AC. That's how I would allow this to work if the player wanted to chance it.
The lower action cost with a feat is how it should be. You spent a feat resource to do this action. Someone just wanting to do it as a ready action and have it automatically work is doing it better than a player that invested feat resources in it? I wouldn't allow it.
If you feel like allowing it, no big deal. I'm sure it would be fine. I prefer abilities like this be codified and work within the parameters Paizo has set for similar abilities.