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.
I think you are misunderstanding how the tree works. Yes, it only has an AC of 10 (a nat 1 by its nature cannot crit succeed, but that's a minor nitpick). But it specifically interposes itself if the ally is hit by the Strike. That means the AC being used is the ally's AC. The tree's AC only matters if the tree itself is the original target of the Strike.
This means that this feat is effectively giving your allies a 10 HP per rank buffer at the cost of two actions and apparently no daily resources. And unlike the proposed Ready strat, which only protects yourself, this buffer protects any ally adjacent to the tree, so the enemy has to put up with the tree no matter who they try to Strike.
There is a reason why people often claim the feat is overpowered. Now that I've read it myself, I'm not sure what possessed the devs to give a PC a max-rank spell to use every turn forever.
Yeah, after playing with a bone-flavored Timber Sentinel for a few sessions, I specifically made it a thing the PC did not want to do in-story unless desperate (Abaddon-link), though the campaign was plenty easy when leaving the power unused.
Assuming the GM does have the tree take crits, that still only happens if the tree itself is targeted for the Strike. Meaning, no overflow damage is even possible. And one crit is typically not enough to even kill the tree.
The tree also prevents things like the dreaded Improved Grab from happening, as the Strike never connects to the PC if the tree survives the damage.
Because of ranged combat / spells existing, it is crazy easy for PCs to make use of the tree, and force foes to come to them.
Monsters that can force PCs to move out of the tree's protection are genuinely so rare, even they are typically better off instead just trying to use AoE to hit as many targets as possible, tree included.
And now that Large PCs are in style... the tree is that much more a problem. It only needs to be adjacent to 1/4 of the PC, and said PC can literally wall out the attackers much much easier than before.
.
I was not stretching when I said that Timber Sentinel is generally way more ~powerful than this proposed Ready:Dodge, even in the "jump partway through for 100% dodge" best case version.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.I think you are misunderstanding how the tree works. Yes, it only has an AC of 10 (a nat 1 by its nature cannot crit succeed, but that's a minor nitpick). But it specifically interposes itself if the ally is hit by the Strike. That means the AC being used is the ally's AC. The tree's AC only matters if the tree itself is the original target of the Strike.
This means that this feat is effectively giving your allies a 10 HP per rank buffer at the cost of two actions and apparently no daily resources. And unlike the proposed Ready strat, which only protects yourself, this buffer protects any ally adjacent to the tree, so the enemy has to put up with the tree no matter who they try to Strike.
There is a reason why people often claim the feat is overpowered. Now that I've read it myself, I'm not sure what possessed the devs to give a PC a max-rank spell to use every turn forever.
I understand the tree. It comes down to how I dealt with it as a DM. I did have the enemy target the tree. If the enemy targets the tree, it gets wrecked really fast. If the enemy has a multitarget attack, then the tree is a viable target along with the PCs, so it gets wrecked really, really fast.
It's why I don't consider Timber Sentinel as powerful as others consider it. It's usually a one shot and done or if a multiattack target, it gets wrecked.
If a wood kineticist spends all their actions keeping the tree up, then that ties them up nicely. If the PCs want the tree to work, they have to stand next to it which limits their movemnet.
Tactically speaking, this isn't hard to deal with as a DM. If the enemy swings at the PC mindlessly going, "I wonder why this tree keeps taking the blows", then I guess it's a problem. If your enemies actively seek to defeat the strategy, it isn't too hard, especially groups of enemies.
I understand the tree. It comes down to how I dealt with it as a DM. I did have the enemy target the tree. If the enemy targets the tree, it gets wrecked really fast.Spend two actions: your opponent loses an action and suffers MAP on it's first attack against the party.
That's still a good ability. Better than a 1-round slow spell. And the kin can do it infinite times, and they can do it at level 1. This probably does not mean much to you because you play, what, L15-20 games almost exclusively? But at low levels, no caster is throwing out a debuff like that, let alone doing it multiple times per encounter, every encounter.
It's why I don't consider Timber Sentinel as powerful as others consider it. It's usually a one shot and done or if a multiattack target, it gets wrecked.Your group plays at very high levels, and it sounds like you GM your enemies to have instant accurate understanding of how the tree appearing should change their tactics. I don't think I would ever play a dumb animal that way, even if it helped mitigate the power of this ability. But yes, I totally see how it is circumstantially less valuable in the circumstances your groups typically play in.
The tree is not bad. It gets progressively less effective. Enemy groups can deal with it as can powerful monsters.
You don't fight a lot of dumb animals at higher levels. Sure, I'd likely have a dumb animal not adjust their tactics too much. But Protector Tree is also a spell. When a spell or ability becomes ubiquitous, I consider the tactic to bypass also become ubiquitous.
Players are not cleverly using never before seen strategies with their abilities. They're using abilities that every wood kineticist has and every primal caster has at level 1. I treat every commonly used spell this way.
If you talk to any trained combatant, they will know how to deal with the tactics they face. PF2 is filled with monsters that spend a lot of time fighting.
Now that you bring it up, it makes even less sense to allow this tactic you can use at level 1 to be automatically successful at avoiding a strike all the way to level 20. It gets a bit absurd when your high level characters and enemies are still using a 2 action ready with a reaction to 100 percent avoid an attack while using up the strike for the 1000th time where the enemies go, "Look at that, he leapt away again. It's so easy to leap away from my attacks. I can never land the hit."
It's like the comedy bit where the person falls for the spot on the shirt followed by the nose hit every time.
Note that most people who see the tree appear will not instantly recognize it even at high levels. For one, most people do not prepare or learn Protector Tree. Second, even if they did, the kineticist is merely conjuring the tree without actually casting the spell, so there's nothing to identify. A DC 15 Nature check to Recall Knowledge should give it away though.
Now that you bring it up, it makes even less sense to allow this tactic you can use at level 1 to be automatically successful at avoiding a strike all the way to level 20. It gets a bit absurd when your high level characters and enemies are still using a 2 action ready with a reaction to 100 percent avoid an attack while using up the strike for the 1000th time where the enemies go, "Look at that, he leapt away again. It's so easy to leap away from my attacks. I can never land the hit."If you look at my previous posts, you'll see I kind of agree with you. But I don't see it as a reason to change how it mechanically works. IMO 'advanced combatant' opponents would just recognize a ready as a ready. While they might not know the trigger or what it will trigger, if they see the PC is readying themselves for their advance or attack, they'll consider if there's a better option to just walking into it. In this case, maybe even the beasts do so; I think of a guy with a sword or bow raised, and the bear starts circling, looking for an angle, instead of just going straight in.
Unless you are the Kurgan in the last fight sequence of Highlander. In that case, you intentionally rush straight into the Ready. :)
I don't see the need to change it either.
I thought we were discussing in comparison to Trip's desire to have a 2 action ready action that allows a 100 percent miss chance while using up a strike. I was illustrating that even this tree is not a 100 percent miss chance.
I don't think Paizo intended for 100 percent miss chances for a 2 action ready action for a reaction that uses up the strike from an unlimited resource for any class.
We're talking about regular strikes right now. But what about using this against a 2 action activity like Crashing Slam or some monsters 2 action activities or a blink charge or something. Does it only work against a regular strike? What if you're using the new Power Attack?
Protector Tree and Timber Sentinel are fine in my book. Wood needs something to make it really cool. Protector Tree gives wood kineticists the feeling of the protective forest. I'm good with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The feat allows the user to cast a max-rank non-cantrip spell an unlimited number of times. No feat should ever be capable of this. Either the feat is overpowered or the spell is atrocious. At least one of the two needs an errata.
If no one would pay a spell slot to cast the spell, it should get buffed, though I'm not sure how. The feat can't be the only good way to use the spell.
With the spell balanced, the feat should be Frequency once per minute or longer. Even monsters don't get at-will spells at max rank.
On a perhaps less important note, planting an entire forest in one day should not be within the realm of possibility for a level 1 character, especially if a level 1 druid can't pull it off. The ability to create nonmagical trees should be limited, perhaps to one per day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I just realized a weakness of Protector Tree (and therefore Timber Sentinel). The tree only protects allies. A creature never counts as their own ally.
So the feat is actually quite a bit different from the Ready strat. The former protects only your friends. The latter can only protect you.
The feat allows the user to cast a max-rank non-cantrip spell an unlimited number of times. No feat should ever be capable of this. Either the feat is overpowered or the spell is atrocious. At least one of the two needs an errata.
If no one would pay a spell slot to cast the spell, it should get buffed, though I'm not sure how. The feat can't be the only good way to use the spell.
With the spell balanced, the feat should be Frequency once per minute or longer. Even monsters don't get at-will spells at max rank.
On a perhaps less important note, planting an entire forest in one day should not be within the realm of possibility for a level 1 character, especially if a level 1 druid can't pull it off. The ability to create nonmagical trees should be limited, perhaps to one per day.
I can see the problem with Timber Sentinel against single target bosses being spammed. It stacks with slow and trip and other action reducers. So against a single target boss Timber Sentinel is a soft lock that pretty much renders the boss useless. Might as well not even roll out the fight.
It's just ok against groups.I can see your concern as there are many bosses that Timber Sentinel, especially in a group, would render an entire boss completely useless. I think you are probably right that it should be more limited.
I haven't had players use this yet against a lot of bosses because kineticists are not popular and wood kineticist even less so.
I'm starting to see the problem with it. It may be too much of a force multiplier in a group environment against solo bosses.
I in turn am also coming around on the Ready strat being an issue. Be it Protector Tree, Containment, or similar effects, it seems eating up attacks warrants spending spell slots, whereas dodging for free is largely what AC is for.
We'll have to wait to hear back from Easl about their group trying the strat out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes we are discussing that.
It's hard to argue intent here, IMO. What I will say is that I hope to test run it tomorrow. If OP, then the GM will probably say nyetski. If not OP, then we'll probably keep.But IMO yes there are comparable 100% miss chance abilities. I referred to one: when facing an invisble opponent (or an enemy facing an invisible character), if they swing at an empty square, they miss, 100%, doesn't matter what they roll. That's basically what Trip's idea is doing - causing a swing at an empty square. So at least in my mind, there is no prima facie reason to think this is OP, since 'causing your opponent to swing at an empty square' is already a mechanic that happens in the game some times. But really, I'm not putting my money on 'I found a precedent.' My table's going to decide this empirically.
That in no way is comparable. Invisibility has its own rules for how it works. They are very clear and nowhere near 100 percent miss chances with plenty of methods to bypass it. Thus it doesn't work close to 100 percent. Not sure why you are using this comparison.
Well, the PC has to name a specific in-game detectable trigger, not just a game mechanic. Can you think of one that protects against strikes AND moves AND crashing slams AND a blink charge? Probably not, right? So that's one limitation and a way an opponent can defeat it: when you see your opponent 'ready for you', do something significantly different from what you think they readied for. 'Ready for strike' probably covers both a 1a strike and a 2a power strike, but 'ready for move' probably doesn't cover a blink charge...and 'ready for blink charge' probably shouldn't cover "I step and strike."
And turtle, I'd say this applies to your question too. ISTM that if a table accepts Trip's idea, then yes it would reasonably follow that someone could ready a move or jump for other things too. But with the same limitation problem; you have to specify a trigger, and so unless you're facing one enemy that does one single thing, readying against 'if they throw a bomb' or 'if they shoot an arrow' will result in the ready action simply being lost if the opponent goes 'ah, I see they readied something but I don't know for sure what? Okay, I'll throw a dagger instead' or even just 'Ah, okay, I'll throw my bomb at the wizard instead.'
Thus a another conundrum created by this ruling. Crashing Slam looks every bit like a strike, so if you 100 percent dodge the strike trigger, do you dodge the Crashing Slam? How do you key this ability off a trigger that is if they swing at me? It's not if they swing at me with a strike only as several abilities key off strikes including Spellstrike, Crashing Slam, Blink Charge, Flurry of Blows (you avoid both blows by leaping out of range?), and the like. You're creating a major headache for yourself for how to adjudicate this with any ability with a Strike subordinate action.
The fact you have to use one rule that applies to invisibility only if the target is undetected is more proof that it is not comparable. If the invisible target attacks someone, it is just hidden and thus you can target the square with the 11 or better chance to hit.
Paizo has been very, very careful about including abilities that have a 100 percent miss chance. Very careful. And this action on here is a 100 percent miss chance by any class at any level for 2 actions and 1 reaction, not even a feat investment or spell.
It's not a matter of overpowered. It's there is nothing like it in the game. I model things by what is in the game. A possible choosing of the wrong square only occurs in PF2 to my knowledge when the target is undetected and hasn't attacked. Hidden still allows an enemy to target the location with an 11 or better miss chance.
Invisibility when used in this manner requires a spell slot and continuous of stealth actions on top of hoping enemies don't have the means to locate you.
I think the biggest issue with finding comparisons is that Ready:Dodge is a 2A +R activity, while most Rs being discussed have no action cost up front.
There is little more "costly" in terms of combat than a 2A chunk ability, to the point that a Rank 2 Reaction spell like Warping Pull
(which can interrupt offense to require Stride!)
is really not a remotely appropriate comparison.
.
This is why it's so interesting to me how Timber Sentinel compares, as it's going to be incredibly rare to find 2A preparatory defensive activities like that.
Even something like Rogue's Preparation is a better point of comparison to those spells imo.
Spend 1A to gain another (rogue) R, just for that turn.
It's a huge difference that it's 1A and not 2A, but it still requires that the PC actually trigger and benefit from the extra R, else it is a complete waste.
Though, it's worth mentioning that the extra R on a class with Opportune Backstab & Nimble Strike is likely going to be used for extra MAP 0 Strikes instead of defensive actions... and on a class with a chassis that's all about passive Strike boosts...
But eh, even if those MAP 0 Strikes are way better than dodging, that requires a feat combo, and class feats are supposed to be potent.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The closest I would allow to this strategy is for a player to ready to move away when someone ends a move action adjacent to their character. That feels like a narrative thing that makes sense and is easy to arbitrate without getting too hokey.
The readying an action to move away after the character has been targeted with a strike feels too game mechanically driven to me, and like it is trying to replace the whole purpose of what AC is. If character want to spend actions to be harder to hit, that is exactly what raise a shield is there for, and with investment it can even be a way to reduce damage taken (most characters that want to do it get shield block for free but not all of them do). It just doesn't feel like some thing like this should exist in PF2 without being something like a class feat. Edit: It especially feels off because waiting until the strike action is taken would mean the enemy gains MAP as well, so potentially move, wasted attack action, required movement to attack again and MAP is way too much free stuff for 2 actions and a reaction.
Not requiring a free hand, not requiring any feats or equipment, not requiring a spell, it just doesn't feel in line with how PF2 works as a system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The closest I would allow to this strategy is for a player to ready to move away when someone ends a move action adjacent to their character. That feels like a narrative thing that makes sense and is easy to arbitrate without getting too hokey.
Ending a move action is a game mechanic.
I would allow Ready for a move action triggered when an enemy moves adjacent, but the enemy doesn't necessarily end their movement at that point. They can continue their current move action to follow you as you leave.
The closest I would allow to this strategy is for a player to ready to move away when someone ends a move action adjacent to their character. That feels like a narrative thing that makes sense and is easy to arbitrate without getting too hokey.Ending a move action is a game mechanic.
I would allow Ready for a move action triggered when an enemy moves adjacent, but the enemy doesn't necessarily end their movement at that point. They can continue their current move action to follow you as you leave.
I disagree with this. Once they have moved adjacent, their move action is done.
It is made clear if you want to move when someone else moves to keep up, that usually costs a reaction. If you allowed them to move again because the target moved, then you give them abilities that allow this with a reaction for free and you devalue abilities like Zephyr Slip that use a reaction to move away from an adjacent target.
If the target uses its move to get adjacent to you, it doesn't suddenly get to move again because they have more move and you moved using a resource. That I would not give them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Finoan's "nuh uh" is kinda exactly what the sidebar guidance was written to address.
Yes, as specifically stated, ending a move is a game mechanic and unobservable*.
But, it's also functionally identical to a "valid" Ready trigger. It's needless nitpicking to force players to rules-lawyer ready triggers if you know how it could be rephrased to achieve the same effect.
"If I see someone move adjacent to me, who then stops moving to do something else, then my Ready:___ fires"
The closest I would allow to this strategy is for a player to ready to move away when someone ends a move action adjacent to their character. That feels like a narrative thing that makes sense and is easy to arbitrate without getting too hokey.Ending a move action is a game mechanic.
I would allow Ready for a move action triggered when an enemy moves adjacent, but the enemy doesn't necessarily end their movement at that point. They can continue their current move action to follow you as you leave.
With the exception of creatures and characters with abilities like Sudden charge that combine an attack into a move action, I think there is pretty intentional space in the game for the transition between actions (or activities) to be the natural break for reactions that characters in world would be able to identify.
The closest I would allow to this strategy is for a player to ready to move away when someone ends a move action adjacent to their character. That feels like a narrative thing that makes sense and is easy to arbitrate without getting too hokey.Ending a move action is a game mechanic.
I would allow Ready for a move action triggered when an enemy moves adjacent, but the enemy doesn't necessarily end their movement at that point. They can continue their current move action to follow you as you leave.
I disagree with this. Once they have moved adjacent, their move action is done.
It is made clear if you want to move when someone else moves to keep up, that usually costs a reaction. If you allowed them to move again because the target moved, then you give them abilities that allow this with a reaction for free and you devalue abilities like Zephyr Slip that use a reaction to move away from an adjacent target.
If the target uses its move to get adjacent to you, it doesn't suddenly get to move again because they have more move and you moved using a resource. That I would not give them.
Zephyr's slip trigger is "A creature enters a space within 5 feet of you." and a Stride can move you up to your speed. If a creature moves within 5 feet of the spellcaster, the spellcaster uses Zephyr slip, and the creature still has movement available, they can (and should) pursue the caster, if that was their intent. This is perfectly acceptable.
In the same way they could continue their movement if they did not intend to stop within 5 feet of the caster, because they were trying to reach someone else (or, if they have the Reach, move to a position where they can threaten both the caster and a buddy, or something).
That being said, yes, there are reactions which do specifcy a creature ends their movement within 5 feet, for example the viper and in those cases yeah, you've ended your movement, you don't get anymore. But that circles back to the whole "not all triggers we see in reactions in-game are valid triggers for Readied actions" discussion.
The closest I would allow to this strategy is for a player to ready to move away when someone ends a move action adjacent to their character. That feels like a narrative thing that makes sense and is easy to arbitrate without getting too hokey.Ending a move action is a game mechanic.
I would allow Ready for a move action triggered when an enemy moves adjacent, but the enemy doesn't necessarily end their movement at that point. They can continue their current move action to follow you as you leave.
I disagree with this. Once they have moved adjacent, their move action is done.
It is made clear if you want to move when someone else moves to keep up, that usually costs a reaction. If you allowed them to move again because the target moved, then you give them abilities that allow this with a reaction for free and you devalue abilities like Zephyr Slip that use a reaction to move away from an adjacent target.
If the target uses its move to get adjacent to you, it doesn't suddenly get to move again because they have more move and you moved using a resource. That I would not give them.
Zephyr's slip trigger is "A creature enters a space within 5 feet of you." and a Stride can move you up to your speed. If a creature moves within 5 feet of the spellcaster, the spellcaster uses Zephyr slip, and the creature still has movement available, they can (and should) pursue the caster, if that was their intent. This is perfectly acceptable.
In the same way they could continue their movement if they did not intend to stop within 5 feet of the caster, because they were trying to reach someone else (or, if they have the Reach, move to a position where they can threaten both the caster and a buddy, or something).
That being said, yes, there are reactions which do specifcy a creature ends their movement within 5 feet, for example the...
I don't agree with this. The target moves to a square adjacent to you indicates they stopped. It doesn't say moves through or moves by. It says moves to a square adjacent to you meaning they halted their movement in a square adjacent to you. Doesn't really matter if they're trying to pursue you or anyone else. They moved to the square and are done.
Otherwise you would write something like, "The target moves to or through a square adjacent to you."
I do agree that Stride is very odd in the single action actually being a long string of independent 5ft moves.
If a Stride is interrupted by a Reaction halfway, by RaW, the action is paused and the Reaction completes. After that, the Stride should be allowed to resume by default.
An earlier cited example can be reused here, that of Gogiteth's reactive Skitter thing. As soon as a creature enters its reach, the Gogi is able to Skitter a distance away.
Our GM rather automatically allowed the PCs to continue the Stride after the skitter, and did not prematurely end the movement, nor require the PC's move to be "locked in" before the Gogi did the skitter.
Some triggers may specify ending movement, others may instead specify that it's about proximity. Those details are beside the main ~flowchart sequence on how Reactions function.
.
And it's also important to point out that just because a creature may perform an activity containing a sequence of actions, that doesn't change how this "trigger: pause, Reaction time, resume" works.
Being able to interrupt an activity sequence is actually a key part of *why* the rules have careful lingo around activities versus actions.
If a PC with matching reach were to Sudden Charge at a Gogi, and perfectly use up all their movement to end just in mutual reach of the Gogi, That Gogi would be able to Skitter out of range before the PC's Strike began.
There is 0 way RaW to permit Sudden Charge to trump the Gogi's Reaction like that and make the Strike "before it moves" or some such.
I don't agree with this. The target moves to a square adjacent to you indicates they stopped. It doesn't say moves through or moves by. It says moves to a square adjacent to you meaning they halted their movement in a square adjacent to you. Doesn't really matter if they're trying to pursue you or anyone else. They moved to the square and are done.Otherwise you would write something like, "The target moves to or through a square adjacent to you."
Well, Zephyr's move is specifically someone entering a space within 5 feet of you, not ending their move there. You could for instance use it to get out of the way of an opponent using the trample ability.
Also, the entirety of the rules about 'stride' is allowing you to move up to your speed. You do not have to commit beforehand what your target square is, let alone declare it to the gm/other players.
Should the situation change while you are doing the action, which it can as every 5 feet can trigger reactions or reveal something that changes the situation, nothing prevents you from changing your mind.
I see that now. I guess they could keep moving if pursuing you. I may get rid of that spell. Too high a resource cost for a spell that doesn't even use up the move action. The nuances of spell design.
Even more proof that they don't include abilities in the game that give a 100 percent chance to use up an action, even a move action with a level 4 spell resource. Those types of actions are rare if they exist at all, highly limited, and should never be allowed using an unlimited resource and no training like 2 actions and a reaction.
Well last night's session was somewhat combat-light. We had only two combat scenes. Three tree drops but no uses of ready-step; there just weren't good situations for it, and our front-liners saw more value in 2nd attacks and outright movement rather than ready. So I expect we'll keep it in our game, because despite all the alarmism here, it seems circumstantially useful at best, and not at all overpowered. In terms of defensive actions, it's far far less generally valuable than a 2a tree drop or 2a heal, and it requires the "wrong" party members to play defense (i.e. the ones in the best position to play offense).
It's not alarmism. It's that such abilities that work with 100 percent effectiveness with no resource cost don't exist. I don't see it as an efficient use of actions. For me it has more to do with how I run games and less to do with my concerns for balance. I'm not going to let someone just dream up a ready action that does something better than an ability someone has invested feats, spells, or other abilities into. It's not how I do things or ever will.
The feat allows the user to cast a max-rank non-cantrip spell an unlimited number of times. No feat should ever be capable of this. Either the feat is overpowered or the spell is atrocious.The kin identity is unlimited casting. The devs had to know that that was going to happen. The problem for encounter mode is not repeat casting, it's that Protector tree doesn't seem to follow the regular kin limitation of Max Rank-1 effect. It's a Max Rank effect. (It's probably a good example then, as to why kins should not be given max rank blasts...even if that's what many players really really pretty please Paizo wanted out of it. IMO powerful offensive abilities are more disruptive than defensive ones, so if you think PT is bad, you gotta expect something like max rank fireball would be worse...but I digress).
I'm not sure creating forests in exploration mode is that much of a problem. Isn't the GM free to impose fatigue on characters that try stuff like that, I thought? Though I'm not finding it in a quick search.
If the standard kineticist is usually limited to max rank -1 for free, perhaps the feat should be level 3 and generate a max rank -1 tree, with no Frequency entry. Perhaps it being max rank impacted Easl's groups assessment of the Ready strat, because of course Timber Sentinel is better. But the infinite forest is still should not be allowed.
When a player Repeats a Spell, the GM can impose fatigue after a while if the spell involves complex decisions. While the spell is complex, the player doesn't need to put much thought into the effect when casting it. And even if they did, remember that the kineticist isn't literally casting protector tree, so Repeat a Spell's fatigue doesn't apply.
For me it has more to do with how I run games and less to do with my concerns for balance. I'm not going to let someone just dream up a ready action that does something better than an ability someone has invested feats, spells, or other abilities into. It's not how I do things or ever will.The whole point of ready is to do something that can't otherwise be done. You're literally turning any single action thing you can do into a reaction.
No, that is not the point of the ready action. I have no idea why you think this.
It has very clear limitations on how it works. It is usually to do something like strike at a key time.
It is based on actions you can do turning them into a reaction for some trigger for a reason.
It has clear, limited rules which does further shows that Paizo is very clear to make rules as clear as possible. Nothing in the rules says you can leap away and completely dodge and attack.
It is based on actions you can do turning them into a reaction for some trigger for a reason.Yes, exactly. So you can react by ready jumping or moving.
It has clear, limited rules which does further shows that Paizo is very clear to make rules as clear as possible. Nothing in the rules says you can leap away and completely dodge and attack.Nothing says you can't.
The issue is whether a ready reaction can interrupt an action someone (or an NPC) is doing on their turn. If it can, then this works. If it can't, then this doesn't. There are feats and class abilities where reactions do effectively interrupt actions, so the "nothing else does it" conclusion is simply incorrect. But it is unclear whether this reaction can do that.
Nothing says you can't? The counter to that is nothing says you can.
No skill feats for athletics or acrobatics that allow you to dodge a blow with 100 percent effectiveness using a reaction. No class abilities that allow it for a feat investment. No spells that allow it.
So why do you think that the ready action allows it when nothing in the game allows this? I don't get it.
Now we just get to dream up ready actions that work better than feats, spells, and don't require any expenditure but some actions that work with 100 percent effectiveness?
Why isn't there a total defense action any longer that allows you to boost AC for an action cost like PF1? My players asked me about that. I said Paizo didn't want those kind of defensive options in the game any longer. The best you can do is generally shield or parry.
But now, after Paizo specifically avoids putting these types of things in the game or greatly reduces their effectiveness, we're all supposed to believe the mighty ready action was intended to work to avoid a strike with 100 percent effectiveness?
Not buying it. If you want to buy in, have at it. I'm not buying this idea. I don't see any reason it would work better than abilities that already exist to do this very thing that don't work with 100 percent effectiveness.
I'm leaving it there. This is getting crazy redundant as you try to find these strange comparisons. I don't think it should be allowed myself. I think it creates unnecessary headaches, especially when you start working in subordinate Strike action abilities. It's not worth the headarche.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is whether a ready reaction can interrupt an action someone (or an NPC) is doing on their turn. If it can, then this works. If it can't, then this doesn't.
If the enemy spends the actions, but the actions have no effect, that is the definition of Disrupting actions.
Neither Ready, or Stride, or Leap list that they can Disrupt actions.
But it is unclear whether this reaction can do that.
It is not unclear. Ready does not Disrupt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is whether a ready reaction can interrupt an action someone (or an NPC) is doing on their turn. If it can, then this works. If it can't, then this doesn't.If the enemy spends the actions, but the actions have no effect, that is the definition of Disrupting actions.
Neither Ready, or Stride, or Leap list that they can Disrupt actions.
But it is unclear whether this reaction can do that.It is not unclear. Ready does not Disrupt.
I mean it's also the definition of Concealed and Hidden neither of which Disrupt and both of which can cause someone to spend an action (or several) to no effect.
Not to mention there's already feats like Repel Metal, Soul Flare, Guardian's Deflection or even items like the Bracers of Missile Deflection or Fungal Armor that can turn a hit into a miss with 100% certainty without disrupting. Sure, they all have limits and specific use cases, unlike Ready, but saying Disrupting is the only way for this to happen is incorrect.
If the enemy spends the actions, but the actions have no effect, that is the definition of Disrupting actions.
Neither Ready, or Stride, or Leap list that they can Disrupt actions.
But it is unclear whether this reaction can do that.It is not unclear. Ready does not Disrupt.
No, exiting range is not disrupting actions. Disrupting is specifically ending another's actions partway through completion. The disrupted creature is outright prevented from finishing the action.
Moving outside of range does not invoke that disrupt mechanic.
A Gogi that reactively skitters outside of range of an in-progress Sudden Charge does not "disrupt" as a Reactive Strike might.
Even the new Warping Pull can cause this evasion for any multi-hit ability, such as Flurry of Blows. The Reaction teleports the ally after the first hit, and now the 2nd is ineligible.
I do not know how an honest contributor to the discussion could misconstrue this by accident, after this has already been clearly explained before.
No, exiting range is not disrupting actions. Disrupting is specifically ending another's actions partway through completion. The disrupted creature is outright prevented from finishing the action.Moving outside of range does not invoke that disrupt mechanic.
A Gogi that reactively skitters outside of range of an in-progress Sudden Charge does not "disrupt" as a Reactive Strike might.Even the new Warping Pull can cause this evasion for any multi-hit ability, such as Flurry of Blows. The Reaction teleports the ally after the first hit, and now the 2nd is ineligible.
I do not know how an honest contributor to the discussion could misconstrue this by accident, after this has already been clearly explained before.
Warping Pull triggers on damage, so it won't save someone from Flurry/Double Slice/Other stuff that combines damage from multiple hits. But it's super useful against something like Draconic Frenzy or similar, for sure.
Warping Pull triggers on damage, so it won't save someone from Flurry/Double Slice/Other stuff that combines damage from multiple hits. But it's super useful against something like Draconic Frenzy or similar, for sure.
Lol, this is the second time this thread I screwed up by using an example that was a specific exemption.*
Totally correct that the "combine damage" abilities like Flurry wouldn't get combo-broken.
Uh, hunh, well now that I'm reading the text with that question in mind...
Make two Strikes against your prey with the required weapon. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses. Apply your multiple attack penalty to each Strike normally.
That's the only abnormal behavior that distinguishes a Flurry-style 1A from two sequential strikes.
Meaning, I guess the "can interrupt via Reaction" is actually a * maybe, depending on the GM.
The combine damage mechanic is worded to only affect the resistance & weakness considerations. From a RaW strict PoV, the GM would otherwise treat them as 2 sequential hits.
I am surprised that there is 0 text to paint the two hits as simultaneous in any way, and instead the text very much indicates the ability is just a quick, but clearly sequential, combo of hits.
(I'm leaning toward yes, R would combo-break before a possible 2nd hit could even invoke the combine dmg clause.)
Either way, Flurry is a bad example due to that unneeded complication, so I appreciate the callout.
I mean it's also the definition of Concealed and Hidden neither of which Disrupt and both of which can cause someone to spend an action (or several) to no effect.
Not to mention there's already feats like Repel Metal, Soul Flare, Guardian's Deflection or even items like the Bracers of Missile Deflection or Fungal Armor that can turn a hit into a miss with 100% certainty without disrupting. Sure, they all have limits and specific use cases, unlike Ready, but saying Disrupting is the only way for this to happen is incorrect.
Wow, great finds there, especially that "it just works" R of Fungal Armor, not seen that before.
Enemy caster spends their most potent magics, and manages to hit you with a Disintegrate spell? On Reaction, no they didn't!
This is not even the "Trigger ability" that I was putting into Ready, which was to trigger the "Pause!" after the attack was committed, but before the attack roll was made.
Those outright are the prior strawman of retro-causality where you only spend the R after the foe first lands the hit, but can then nullify that hit, lol.
Great to have more plain proof that such "overpowered" Reactions are valid in the system, which imo really indicates the GM should probably invent some house ground rules on what Ready triggers they personally allow / disallow. Such as explaining that (the already impossible) retro-causality is forbidden.
That blank check of Ready really is quite the large blank.
(To be clear, a Fungal Armor style hit nullify is not possible via Ready. That power comes from not the trigger, but the action/effect text stating the retro-causal effect. Ready can only prime existing 1A actions, not modify their text to add such an effect. This means that while Ready can cause interruptions between events, there is still no way Ready could break the chronological sequence and change outcomes that have already occurred.)
Now I'm back on the fence. It's fair to argue that nothing in the game being similar to the Ready strat isn't necessarily a deal breaker. In fact, actions doing things nothing else can do is kinda the point.
On the other hand, neither Stride nor Ready state that they can disrupt actions.
On the other other hand, we regularly treat a Reactive Strike that reduces a creature to zero HP as effectively disrupting the triggering action, even without a crit, even if it's not a manipulate action. The action is lost simply as a consequence of suddenly being unable to act. So if reactions can foil actions completely just by their nature as reactions, it's not completely out of the question for a Readied action to completely thwart an action by robbing it of its requirements, such as reach or line of effect.
On the other other other hand, this Ready strat can thwart more actions than the user actually invested.
In perhaps an extreme case, a Magus trying to Spellstrike an enemy usually needs to burn an action to recharge the Spellstrike, and they need two actions to Spellstrike, for a total of three actions. It also might cost a spell slot. But suppose this Magus is up against a kobold warrior Readying Stride. Kobold can completely deny the Magus any opportunity to attempt Spellstrike.
On the other other other other hand, a Magus with no ranged spells is a very dumb Magus.
On the other other other other other hand, not getting a chance to actually use Spellstrike or other action-intensive melee abilities seems very unsatisfying.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, there is no reason to get caught up in trying to carefully parse rules interpretation for deciding if this ability is something I want to allow in my game or not. As far as would I ever allow it? Maybe. One time in a situation where it is a really clever way to tie up a powerful enemy that is probably going to TPK the party if they don't do everything they can to waste its actions this turn, then I would probably not balk at it.
But if the party was starting to try to strategize around this one rules ambiguity that has no support with any actions, items, feats, etc. that indicate that this is an activity to character build around (like hiding and sneaking, or create a distraction, or feinting, etc.) , I would stick to, "you can ready an action to move away from an enemy that ends their move action next to you" as close as I would allow for this.
The reasons why are multiple:
Generally, its not a great strategy.
When it is a great strategy though, it is "trade 2 actions and a reaction for essentially wasting a creatures entire turn" or at least 2 actions and giving it MAP. That trade off is way too good to be dice-less, automatic success, especially on higher level solo creatures.
Additionally, deciding how to arbitrate it in play is always going to end up pretty gamey and GM dependent. Any time a creature readies an action, how aware of what they are planning is everyone else around them? You do have to spend 2 actions preparing and your character has to be precisely positioned to be able to do their reaction at the right time. Generally, I take that to mean that everyone should be fairly aware of what possible actions the character is preparing to do. There is no deception check here. If a character readies an action to shut a door after the last PC makes it out of a room, I think everyone would be able to see that. If a character is readying an attack for a specific condition to be met, it should at least be pretty obvious that the character is going to make an attack and quite possible when, especially if that is being coordinated with the actions of other characters in the encounter. In PF 1, if a character is fighting defensively, everyone knows it. In PF2, if a character raises a shield or is even parrying, everyone knows it (unless the character has specific class feats that let them raise the shield as a reaction, in which case no one knows when that character will take that action). Spending 2 actions to jump away from someone coming to attack you should be pretty obvious as well. So the player choosing to spend two actions and a reaction on this is pretty dependent upon a GM playing along with the strategy from the beginning and that really feels like a recipe for hurt player feelings if the GM allows the strategy, but then counters it with appropriate NPC play. Minimally, the guidelines around it should be established as "this is not generally going to be a viable strategy, but against particularly mindless enemies, you might be able to get a little bit of milage out of it" if players bring it up as an idea before they try to use it in an encounter.
If it come up naturally as a player plan that really doesn't feel like "I looked this idea up on the internet and am trying to force it to happen to show how effectively I can manipulate the rules," and it is against a creature that wouldn't immediately read the situation and just attack someone else, then I probably would allow it the one time and then not again in the combat as the creature sees the consequence, and then have the general guideline talk I mentioned before.
But again, the number one reason I wouldn't allow it is because "jumping away from an immediately impending attack" is very much a subset of the general attack roll vs AC game mechanic and not something that should be able to made bypass a die roll by taking advantage of the wonkiness of turn based game play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Warping Pull triggers on damage, so it won't save someone from Flurry/Double Slice/Other stuff that combines damage from multiple hits. But it's super useful against something like Draconic Frenzy or similar, for sure.
Lol, this is the second time this thread I screwed up by using an example that was a specific exemption.*
Totally correct that the "combine damage" abilities like Flurry wouldn't get combo-broken.** spoiler omitted **
Either way, Flurry is a bad example due to that unneeded complication, so I appreciate the callout.
But if you pull back and say "No, actually, you know you would take damage the moment you get hit" (which is a perfectly fine stance to have) then yeah, those abilities get interrupted, combined damage or not.
I mean it's also the definition of Concealed and Hidden neither of which Disrupt and both of which can cause someone to spend an action (or several) to no effect.
Not to mention there's already feats like Repel Metal, Soul Flare, Guardian's Deflection or even items like the Bracers of Missile Deflection or Fungal Armor that can turn a hit into a miss with 100% certainty without disrupting. Sure, they all have limits and specific use cases, unlike Ready, but saying Disrupting is the only way for this to happen is incorrect.
Wow, great finds there, especially that "it just works" R of Fungal Armor, not seen that before.
Enemy caster spends their most potent magics, and manages to hit you with a Disintegrate spell? On Reaction, no they didn't!
This is not even the "Trigger ability" that I was putting into Ready, which was to trigger the "Pause!" after the attack was committed, but before the attack roll was made.
Those outright are the prior strawman of retro-causality where you only spend the R after the foe first lands the hit, but can then nullify that hit, lol.
Great to have more plain proof that such "overpowered" Reactions are valid in the system, which imo really indicates the GM should probably invent some house ground rules on what Ready triggers they personally allow / disallow. Such as explaining that (the already impossible) retro-causality is forbidden.
That blank check of Ready really is quite the large blank.
(To be clear, a Fungal Armor style hit nullify is not possible via Ready. That power comes from not the trigger, but the action/effect text...
Fungal Armor is once per day on a level 15 item. You all are reaching like crazy to prove your position. Even Fungal Armor turns you into a cloud that can't attack and moves very slowly, then can be attacked after that and didn't move.
Once again Fungal Armor proves that there are no reactions without a cost.
For the cost of avoiding a single attack:
1. Level 15 item
2. Reaction
3. Turn into gaseous form.
4. Did not move, so can be attacked again.
5. Must use an action to dismiss gaseous form for a dismiss action.
6. Usable once per day.
The more you attempt to prove your position, the more you prove mine.
No 100 percent reactions with unlimited use without a cost, not just in actions but in feats, magic items, times per day, and other unusual consequences.
You want to be able to use this ready action all day, all the time, every character for no feat, magic item, spell, or any investment other than actions.