Once again Fungal Armor proves that there are no reactions without a cost.
Quoting to emphasise.
Ready is build resource free. Yeah, sure it takes 2 actions, but it's 2 actions you can take, like, whenever you feel like it, whenever it looks right, without having to take a feat or pick a class or invest an item or use a hand or whatever. The entry condition is so low that you have to weigh that in accordingly, especially since Ready already does a lot of other useful things.
Perhaps then, instead of comparing it to feats, we should be comparing it to other basic actions?
The comparison is a bit tricky, since of the basic actions, specialty or not, Ready is the only two-action activity. But it is very close in implementation to Aid.
Aid costs an action to set up and a reaction to execute. Even then, it only has a chance of success and a risk of hindering the ally.
This isn't a great use of the ready action for an individual. The only strats I could see this being effective with is maybe a Champion or fighter with extra reactions. It may be an ok group strategy that can work 100 percent effective on a boss monster that is slowed, tripped, and getting one attack anyway.
For me that isn't the point. As a DM I would not allow it. I don't think there is any rules support for an unlimited use 100 percent dodge that uses up the attack.
PF2 was very careful to remove a lot of defensive actions that aren't feat driven. The partial and total defense action was removed. 1 action non-feat actions that increase AC tend to be +1 or 2 circumstance bonus like raise shield or parry.
If you readied an action to raise a shield to boost AC, you'd only get a +2 circumstance bonus to your AC for 2 actions and reaction.
But this ready action Trip is pushing not only 100 percent dodges the attack, but allows you to leap away what? A whole move action? So you can't even be attacked again for 2 actions and a reaction.
So you ready to leap as the attacker reaches attack range, then commits to the swing:
1. You leap away 100 percent dodging.
2. You move however far you can leap.
3. You put yourself out of range for any other attacks making the enemy move again after they already moved and attacked.
As far as I know there is nothing like this in the game and definitely nothing like this that is unlimited use.
Even if it isn't a great use of actions save in certain strategic circumstance, it's asking to do a lot for a ready action that is supposed to allow you to use a 1 action activity as a reaction.
Another way to analyze is asking, is there a one action activity that allows you to 100 percent dodge an attack?
What ready really does is convert a one action activity to a reaction with a trigger. The idea is converting a Leap action into a reaction that completely avoids the attack. That is not what Leap does. So if you were attacked, the attack would be resolved normally then you would leap when attacked.
Nowhere does leap allow you to to avoid an attack. So suddenly converting leap to 100 percent attack avoidance due to the trigger is not how it would work because Leap isn't a dodge.
The trigger of, "Leap when attacked" doesn't matter as the attack is resolved, then you leap as a reaction. Trigger "Leap before you are attacked" would allow you to leap before you are attacked and wouldn't use up the attack action.
A trigger of "Leap to avoid the attack" is a trigger no DM should allow as nothing in the leap ability allows you to avoid an attack. That ability doesn't exist.
Triggers don't suddenly give you the ability make a 1 action activity do something it doesn't do like dodge an attack.
Ready converts a 1 action activity to a reaction with a trigger, but doesn't do things the 1 action activity can't do.
For example, if you converted a strike to a reaction readying to disrupt a spell, can you do it? Does the DM give you an ability better than Reactive Strike allowing you to disrupt a spell with a 100 percent success because you used the trigger, "When the target casts a spell." I say no it doesn't disrupt the spell, not even on a crit. If you don't have Reactive Strike clearly saying you can do it, then Ready doesn't suddenly give the 1 action activity the ability to disrupt.
Though I imagine a DM can allow it on a crit like Reactive Strike.
That's why this is all pure DM caveat. A DM can allow it, but it certainly isn't supported by the rules other than Rule 0. Ready actions do not make 1 action activities do things they can't already do like dodge attacks or disrupt spells.
Forgive me if this has already been answered, but if we're reading this RAW, Leaping out of the way of a Strike doesn't inherently disrupt the Strike. The range restriction of a Strike applies only to declaring the Strike itself, and after that it's just a matter of making an attack roll. In-world, this is effectively you Leaping out of the way as a reaction, but still potentially getting clipped by the attack mid-movement. As a GM, you could of course rule that this gives a chance of disrupting the triggering Strike, but if we're doing rulings, I'd lean more towards house ruling a circumstance bonus (and likely only on the first instance of this happening in an encounter, so that this doesn't get spammed) than going for full-on disruption.
Yeah, and even if Aid proper works, there's a high chance it doesn't affect anything, speaking as a person who tried running Fake Out. The other two-action basic activity I can think off is attempting to remove persistent damage; victims of Barbazus can also attest as to how that also fails to work a substantial portion of the time.
Technically, Administer First Aid is an untrained Medicine skill action, not a basic action.
I personally have no problem with “I ready an action to leap away before being attacked” as a valid trigger. My problem is with thinking that happens after a creature spends the action to make the attack and not the transition between actions. In play it might feel like the character can’t know whether they are the one that will be attacked until the action is declared and the targeting happens, but that is just the Jankiness of turn based game mechanics.
The character isn’t really keeping secret who they are going to attack from the start of their turn. That would be a fairly complicated bit of deception that would minimally require a check. Mechanically it might feel like that is what is going on by trying to hold reaction triggers to a MtG level of specificity of order, but within the context of an RPG where no dice would be rolled between the action that sets up the trigger condition and the reaction happening, it makes much more sense from both a game balance and a logical narration perspective to have the leap occurring before the attack action/activity itself, rather than during it, because that level of anticipation (to actively disrupt an attack in motion) is just not something the game generally does without die rolls and resource expenditures beyond actions/time.
There is no reason to play an RPG so competitively between the GM and the player to require such rules minutiae for a game mechanics that inherently requires a fair bit of GM fiat to work, including what the creatures involved can tell about the situation as it is being set up…especially for something that can come out of nowhere without any warning sign for the GM, like would happen from a player memorizing certain illusion spells or taking feats to apply the fascinated condition, etc.
That's not how most tables run occurrences like this.
First, to clarify, "disrupting" is a specific mechanic that is about force-stopping someone's action from finishing.
That's unrelated to the idea of actions being locked in and committed, but unable to complete due to changing circumstance. I have never once heard of a table that allowed a Strike to complete when the target was outside it's melee reach at the time of the roll.
Those Reaction --> change --> whiff instances happen often enough that most tables have already "ruled" on it, and everyone one I've heard so far has run it RaW where the ineligible actions are lost. In the pf2 system, Reactions are presented as sequentially happening between other events, not happening in parallel.
So no, just because someone began an action sequence that was valid at the time it was paid for, does not mean they get to complete it.
.
Lets use a Ready:Stun action, like Flurry of Blows. This is *not* a "disruption" but will have that effect all the same. Trigger is set for when a foe Sudden Charges into the Monk's reach.
The charge's movement enters within the Monk's trigger, which hits "pause!"
The Reaction then plays out, Flurry hits, foe fails save, and is Stunned.
Every table I have heard of will end the Sudden Charge activity right there. The Stunned foe does not get to move another 5ft, let alone also perform the Strike that they paid for.
In pf2, Reaction based movement (or Shove/Trip/Grab) is sprinkled all over, and each time it's come up in my play experience, these "action is now invalid" situations have been ruled as causing whiffs.
Another example offered above is that of Reaction-received damage KOing a creature, ending their actions prematurely right there. "~disrupting via KO" you could say.
.
To reiterate, I am claiming much of what's being picked over is "already agreed upon" where reactive movement, etc, can cause whiffs*, psedo-disrupt, etc, for activities/actions that are in-progress and already paid for.
The "core issue of debate" is instead how to house-rule Ready to limit the players custom trigger.
I created this thread because if left outright RaW, this means PCs can Leap, etc, on Reaction to dodge attacks. There has been enough dialogue at this point for me to confidently say that Ready:Dodge is indeed the result of the rules as written.
While I personally would permit this form of Ready until (if) it created a gameplay issue, I'm capable of understanding that many would rather pre-ban that level of potency.
The "real debate" here is what new rule to invent to "fairly" limit Ready. Which, yeah, that's a whole hecking lot more nebulous and prone to back-and-forth.
My quick "very balance-safe but limited" version of the invented rule is that actions like Strike are given status of being "atomic." Ready triggers would be prevented from hitting "pause!" part way through any such "atomic" action/event. A Reaction to an atomic only happens after the atomic is completed, or before the atomic's cost is spent/ committed*.
(*or before/after that atomic step in an activity sequence)
For Sudden Charge, one could Ready:Leap and Leap/etc away once the foe stops moving, but the Reaction can only fire while the foe is still in the "movement" step, not inside the Strike step.
So if the Reaction has enough movement, it could cause a "Strike invalid" pseudo-whiff situation, but Ready becomes unable to dodge a swing in motion.
The character isn’t really keeping secret who they are going to attack from the start of their turn. That would be a fairly complicated bit of deception that would minimally require a check.Kinda disagree. I expect the 'primary use case' is a PC using it against an NPC enemy, and I don't know about your games but in our games the opponents are pretty unpredictable. So sometimes this might work, but sometimes it turns out to be a waste of actions when the monster you thought was going to strike you or move/strike towards you, does something else instead. Just last session, the BBEG struck in round 1 and then took off running in round two, hoping to lure the party into some set traps. So thank goodness our martial didn't do the ready/jump. He got a second hit on it instead, and the ready would've been wasted when the thing moved away. Not to mention the possibility that even if it had worked, he could've been reaction-leaping into a trap he didn't know was there.
This is a bad case situation to me (as in one, as a GM, I would want to avoid) because it rests everything about it on the “in play” situational awareness of the character from the perspective of the GM. My player is spending 2 actions and a reaction hoping I choose for the enemy to spring their action sink trap. If I never do, I am playing antagonistically to my players. Always doing so is absurd and making it an overly effective strategy. That is why I brought up the whole “how predictable of an outcome is this to the characters” question, and why I think “fairly obvious” is fairly fair.
My point about keeping attacks secret mechanically is about once a creature starts moving with the obvious intention of attacking. In turn the players don’t know who the character will attack until the attack action begins and a target is chosen, but in world, moving to attack someone and keeping that secret is a difficult thing to do and maintaining any accuracy or force behind an attack. In world, it would be indistinguishable to have the trigger occur between a move action and an attack action instead of in the target choosing section of the attack action itself, and in between the two actions is the fairest and easiest way to arbitrate the whole thing.
That's not how most tables run occurrences like this.
First, to clarify, "disrupting" is a specific mechanic that is about force-stopping someone's action from finishing.
That's unrelated to the idea of actions being locked in and committed, but unable to complete due to changing circumstance. I have never once heard of a table that allowed a Strike to complete when the target was outside it's melee reach at the time of the roll.
That's interesting, because every table I've played at or run has adjudicated his instance in way I've said. At the end of the day, it is the GM who is making a ruling here on whether or not the Strike whiffs and how to act that out, given that Leaping isn't instant and getting clipped mid-movement makes perfectly good sense in-fiction. If the way you're ruling this is causing gameplay issues, consider changing the way you're ruling how this works so as to avoid potential abuse.
But this ready action Trip is pushing not only 100 percent dodges the attack, but allows you to leap away what? A whole move action? So you can't even be attacked again for 2 actions and a reaction.Even with the conservative reading that the trigger doesn't go off until after the attack, it will do #2 and #3 on your list. Your post is very clearly against that. So are you saying you wouldn't allow a Leap to be readied at all?
I think the RAW is extremely clear that it would at least allow your readied leap to occur before opponent's 2nd and 3rd actions. Thus allowing both "you move however far you can leap" and "you put yourself out of range for any other attacks making the enemy move again after they already moved and attacked."
The RAW is clear you can turn a 1 action activity into a reaction with a trigger such as leap.
The RAW is also clear the one action activity doesn't allow you to do things the 1 action activity can't do like dodge an attack.
I normally see Ready used to strike some creature that is using insane movement to kite the PCs or prepare to strike them they enter reach. Pretty easy trigger of, "I strike them when they enter my combat reach."
There is no dodge action outside of feats in PF2. I would have liked more defensive actions, but I also understand why they don't exist as Total or Partial defense was pretty ridiculous in PF1.
Now we have Take Cover, Raise Shield, Use Parry Weapon, Cast a Shield spell. Nothing like 100% dodge a strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do think that in terms of the fiction, it's fairly easy to conceive of how this could pan out: if someone focuses real hard on their opponent's swings and prepares to jump out of the way the moment they start to attack, that can absolutely happen... and the attack can absolutely still hit, because leaping out of the way isn't instantaneous and can still leave time to get hit. Because Ready is an action everyone can take, rather than the product of extremely specialized training, there's nothing really here to suggest in the fiction that adventurers are exceptionally good at bunny-hopping in reaction to Strikes.
I'd also say that even if we rule that Readying this Leap provides absolutely no benefit against the triggering Strike, it can still be quite powerful under certain circumstances: say for instance that you're fighting a young diabolic dragon that's attacking you, and you Ready yourself to Leap away the moment the monster starts attacking you. The monster begins a Draconic Frenzy, and you Leap away after the first Strike: even if the first attack connects, you'll be out of range of the other two before they even begin, so you would in fact be able to cancel two out of those three attacks. If the monster then Flies towards you, you've just spent two actions to mess up its entire turn. It will likely try a different tactic on the next, but that's still a large, if situational benefit.
But this ready action Trip is pushing not only 100 percent dodges the attack, but allows you to leap away what? A whole move action? So you can't even be attacked again for 2 actions and a reaction.Even with the conservative reading that the trigger doesn't go off until after the attack, it will do #2 and #3 on your list. Your post is very clearly against that. So are you saying you wouldn't allow a Leap to be readied at all?
I think the RAW is extremely clear that it would at least allow your readied leap to occur before opponent's 2nd and 3rd actions. Thus allowing both "you move however far you can leap" and "you put yourself out of range for any other attacks making the enemy move again after they already moved and attacked."
The RAW is clear you can turn a 1 action activity into a reaction with a trigger such as leap.
The RAW is also clear the one action activity doesn't allow you to do things the 1 action activity can't do like dodge an attack.
What are you saying here? Consider Teridax's draconic fury example, above. In my mind, the timing here is unquestionably RAW, as it doesn't depend on Trip's notion that the reaction is resolved in the 'middle' of an action. This time, the reaction is clearly occurring after the trigger completes. So do you allow it?
Yes. Because leaping away once attacked is a reasonable trigger that is in line with what we know of the Ready action. The monster is locked in with a frenzy, so you could avoid the remaining frenzy attacks by being out of reach if you can leap that far with a one move distance leap.
This is a bad case situation to me (as in one, as a GM, I would want to avoid) because it rests everything about it on the “in play” situational awareness of the character from the perspective of the GM. My player is spending 2 actions and a reaction hoping I choose for the enemy to spring their action sink trap. If I never do, I am playing antagonistically to my players.I agree that a GM should not cause their enemies to act 'against type' just to avoid a PC's strategy. However that's clearly not what I'm talking about, as the opponent had traps set around the room. Moving to get PCs to trigger them was part of the encounter before we chose our actions for the round. Heck, it was part of the encounter before I had asked the GM days before session if we could try this out.
IOW, just normal standard GMing, playing the monsters 'straight', still creates many situations where, if a PC tries this ready/jump, they're going to find it never triggers because the NPCs simply had a different plan than what the PC thought they did. The martials in my group did not choose a ready/jump like Trip describes simply because they couldn't be sure what the critter would do, not because our GM plays antagonistically (he doesn't). And because they couldn't be sure, getting their second strike in was viewed as much higher value. That's what makes this not the combat-killer you might think it is.
I don't think we are disagreeing that much here. I agree that the situationality of this tactic is so complicated that it is excessively GM dependent on when it would ever work, but that its apparent utility when used to basically disrupt a solo enemies entire turn with a mechanically infallible, resourceless (beyond actions) activity is enough for playing it that way to be disruptive to the table environment as a whole. It is much easier as a GM to say "eh, fine, I'll let this happen and have it trigger from time to time" when the leap back happens before the attack action than in the middle of the attack action, not only wasting an additional action, but also adding MAP to the creature.
I don't see the point in arguing that it is fine for the actual effect of allowing the leap to happen after the attack action is in progress, after targeting but before the die roll because your GM won't allow that to happen all that often, when the problem is that most GMs won't really see how disruptive it is to play it this way until it is happening and then it is going to lead to hard feelings at the table, especially for players who read about the tactic online and think they are going to bring it to their table to exploit it.
Not running it that way, and just letting the reaction happen after the move action still allows it to be useful, without allowing it to basically break major concepts of the game like AC being the measure of how difficult a creature is to hit. Why even have dexterity factor into Armor class if the assumption is that dodging is something characters are supposed to actively do?
The RAW is also clear the one action activity doesn't allow you to do things the 1 action activity can't do like dodge an attack.
No, this is incorrect & backward.
The RaW states that the 1A activity does exactly the same thing in all cases.
Leap is Leap, same move distance, same procedure, etc. No one is giving it superpowers, and that is the entire (perceived) problem. You gotta engage w/ that, specifically.
The "overpowered problem" comes from Ready, the Reaction, allowing too precise a "Pause!" trigger, which can contextually mean interrupting foe actions to prevent completion.
It is only the specific timing of the "Pause!" button slam that grants Ready the mid-Strike dodge power. There is 0 timing-based limiter on it.
To paint that as "allow[ing] you to do things the 1 action activity can't do like dodge an attack." is to bark up the wrong tree.
The "problem" is not with Ready, or even with the Leaping PC. The "problem" is that the foe has already spent and committed those actions. Which is how such a dev oversight can happen to begin with.
.
That's not how most tables run occurrences like this.You're lumping two different things together here. Yes, I think most tables would let the latter parts of a Sudden Charge be 'wasted' if for some reason the character became unable to Stride halfway through. It's been the case everytime I've seen it come up.
But for your specific case, meaning the wasting of a single atomic action due to an 'interruption' somewhere in the middle of its resolution process, I can't even think of another case that would bring up this question other than your specific suggestion about Ready here. So I doubt that many tables have made their minds up about that much more specific case at all.
The issue is that RaW there is no "atomic protection" for actions like Strike. We see that many Reactions further break it up and hit Pause! at different sub-steps, such as "about to ___, but before ___ roll" booster Reactions.
Ready's only special restriction is character observability, and it's pretty easy to say that such physical acts such as nocking an arrow, raising a sword, etc, are quite visible.
.
Once you have those 2 or 3 RaW pieces, there's not really a different outcome that a 100% rules | 0% vibes GM can come to; Ready:Dodge is just the rules on what Ready can enable (because of the precise timing available to Reactions systemically).
As soon as you rule that Reactions can interrupt completion via "action invalid" errors, it's the same rules consistency.
Someone gets KOed via Reactive Strike (not crit "disrupted"), and as per rules, that spell fails to cast, and the slot is lost.
That is the same core concept, which is that Reactions hit "Pause!," play out to completion, then resume the (now invalid) trigger action.
.
Which is why I do jump the gun a bit to explain that a new rule for some actions to gain a "atomic" tag can remove the most "potentially overpowered" uses of Ready, while still keeping it useful.
This method "canonizes the vibes" I've found here, minimizes rules / complication bloat, all while allowing a great degree of GM variability.
A worried GM can start with giving that [atomic] trait to only Strikes, but can simply house rule to add others to the list as needed. (Might want to start with Athletic maneuvers in there too)
(and I'll echo that I think the balance risk is being seriously overblown, and I would start my own list of atomics at 0. I've played multiple sessions looking for an opportunity to do it in-game, and it's just not a practical strategy in a team/party based game.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Dragon example above is not a good one, because Frenzy can target more than one PC, so even if one did the leap thing, the dragon could still wail on two other targets, and they're likely only using Frenzy if that exists.
I'm actually a little surprised at the rancor being given to this idea, given how absolutely horrible it would actually be in play.
What is your best-case scenario? It would be an adversary closing to you, then you Leaping away and avoiding a 2 action powerful attack.
To do that, you wasted 3 actions (after all, you need to Stride back to it on your turn) and a Reaction. Effectively, you crit failed against a Slow and added a 'lose my reaction' rider to it.
What is the worst-case scenario? It would be something like this: Adversary gap closes with one action, declares Strike as Action 2. You Leap. It has Reactive Strike, which triggers on your Leap. It crits. You are now prone, and it's Action 2 MAP-less strike ctirs as well. Then it hits you with an effective MAP -3 Strike for action 3.
In most cases, it would be somewhere in the middle.
Now, if you want to ban this at your table, feel free. But, this is just such a bad idea I would not care if someone at mine tried it. It's just really all downside to the PCs. I'd be annoyed as a player if someone did this frequently in a game I was in. All it does is make the fight harder for everyone else.
The Dragon example above is not a good one, because Frenzy can target more than one PC, so even if one did the leap thing, the dragon could still wail on two other targets, and they're likely only using Frenzy if that exists.
I'm actually a little surprised at the rancor being given to this idea, given how absolutely horrible it would actually be in play.
What is your best-case scenario? It would be an adversary closing to you, then you Leaping away and avoiding a 2 action powerful attack.
To do that, you wasted 3 actions (after all, you need to Stride back to it on your turn) and a Reaction. Effectively, you crit failed against a Slow and added a 'lose my reaction' rider to it.
What is the worst-case scenario? It would be something like this: Adversary gap closes with one action, declares Strike as Action 2. You Leap. It has Reactive Strike, which triggers on your Leap. It crits. You are now prone, and it's Action 2 MAP-less strike ctirs as well. Then it hits you with an effective MAP -3 Strike for action 3.
In most cases, it would be somewhere in the middle.
Now, if you want to ban this at your table, feel free. But, this is just such a bad idea I would not care if someone at mine tried it. It's just really all downside to the PCs. I'd be annoyed as a player if someone did this frequently in a game I was in. All it does is make the fight harder for everyone else.
The creature having reactive strike here would further complicate the whole thing in another way that just doesn't feel worth allowing this as a GM. If my character leaps away interrupting an attack action in progress, then wouldn't the creature's reactive strike have MAP (since it is happening during your turn and you have already taken an attack action, which has been paused)? The attack trait makes it pretty clear that your second attack action (which in this case would be the reactive strike) would suffer from MAP. So for your "worst case scenario," a creature likely capable of knocking an enemy prone on a critical hit (which usually involves some kind of save or check vs a DC in the remaster) is now automatically getting MAP for its first actual attack roll against you and is much less likely to knock you prone in the first place, and it has burned its reactive strike for the whole turn on an attack with MAP.
That makes this strategy seem extra valuable against such a creature, not less.
This limitation of one action per trigger is per creature; more than one creature can use a reaction or free action in response to a given trigger. 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.
It occurs to me that the latter sentence might not be intended to apply to the reaction and the triggering action itself, but rather just to two reactions or free actions being used in response to the same trigger.
Simultaneous Actions
You can use only one single action, activity, or free action that doesn't have a trigger at a time. You must complete one before beginning another. For example, the Sudden Charge activity states you must Stride twice and then Strike, so you couldn't use an Interact action to open a door in the middle of the movement, nor could you perform part of the move, make your attack, and then finish the move.Free actions with triggers and reactions work differently. You can use these whenever the trigger occurs, even if the trigger occurs in the middle of another action.
So it isn't out of the question for a reaction to occur in the middle of the resolution of the triggering action.
I think the main issue with whether the Ready strat is RAW is its trigger. A trigger of an attack being committed to but not yet rolled is usually phrased like: "You are attacked by a foe, but they haven’t rolled yet." This isn't observable in-universe, so it's not valid for Ready. Alternatively, if the trigger was "You are hit by an attack" and the Readied action has no effect that would save you like Reactive Shield's retroactive AC bonus would, then you are out of luck, at least for that attack.
I do like the idea of Ready:Stride thwarting Draconic Frenzy's second and third attacks, though. It's not a default kill, but it can still be a lifesaver.
So it isn't out of the question for a reaction to occur in the middle of the resolution of the triggering action.
I think the main issue with whether the Ready strat is RAW is its trigger. A trigger of an attack being committed to but not yet rolled is usually phrased like: "You are attacked by a foe, but they haven’t rolled yet." This isn't observable in-universe, so it's not valid for Ready. [...]
The issue is that "the sub-steps of a Strike" are plenty observable, but the "flavor verbiage" a player would need is undefined, because that's definitionally outside game mechanic language.
The character in-world is starting at the foe during the entire Strike. They do observe every sub-step within that process, which is what that sidebar is talking about.
Those instructions are about making sure the integrity of it being a legit trigger is preserved, while instructing the GM to not split hairs about the use of mechanical language shorthand.
From another angle: You objection is more or less a spontaneous writing prompt, and doesn't do anything about the core issue creating this Ready:Dodge outcome (time stop powers).
"Cocks back their sword-arm"
"Looks down the shaft of their nocked arrow"
"Starts to lunge at ___"
(because in-world, creatures are further apart than weapon length, so most Strikes do have non-mechanical movement; i.e. "Reach" is not literal.)
Those are examples of Pause! trigger moments that are clearly after the commitment, but before the impact.
Those flavor text descriptions are translating to game mechanic langue, like Disarming Interception's trigger of "targets ___ with a weapon Strike"
.
After carefully reading the objections/ nays, I can not find a RaW way to rule against Ready:Dodge, that really seems to just be the rules.
For those GMs that don't like this "secret power now revealed"
it really comes down to the addition of a new rule / restriction upon Ready.
The base rules are very clear about Reactions just freezing time. Which, again, is the real ~problem, one not addressed by the observability thing.
Being able to freeze time, so long as you can describe the moment, 100% gives the players the power to wait until after actions are committed & spent before they slam Pause! to poof/Leap/etc away from danger on Reaction.
As such, adding a rule to change when the time-stop is/ is not allowed to happen is my recommended method to pre-ban Ready:Dodge.
.
I've even just locked on to another informative bit of text within Activities that reinforces this "auto-dodge" possibility as expected behavior of Reactions:
You have to spend all the actions of an activity at once to gain its effects. In an encounter, this means you must complete it during your turn. If an activity gets interrupted or disrupted in an encounter, you lose all the actions you committed to it.
Thanks to the text giving us a second word to accompany disrupt, this completely removes the "not disruption, therefore GM decides" shield. The text does unambiguously state that interruptions can cause in-progress actions to fail / fizzle.
If Teridax, etc, run interruptions different, that's a houserule in opposition to the RaW (which is fine, but a distraction)
"Cocks back their sword-arm"
"Looks down the shaft of their nocked arrow"
"Starts to lunge at ___"
Are any of these necessarily the Strike action? The first and third ones could just be done passively as part of a move action, and the second one could just be someone checking their aim. In fact, the first two could be the Ready action itself. Nothing requires these events to exist within the space between a Strike starting and a Strike being rolled.
But honestly, my primary concern is with RAI. As Deriven pointed out, Timber Sentinel is quite abusable because the action loss it incurs stacks with slowed, stunned, and other action reducers. The same issues apply to Ready:Dodge. If you inflict slowed 1 on a boss then everyone spams Ready:Dodge, then the boss is basically slowed 2, a consequence so deadly it should only happen on a critical failure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The creature having reactive strike here would further complicate the whole thing in another way that just doesn't feel worth allowing this as a GM. If my character leaps away interrupting an attack action in progress, then wouldn't the creature's reactive strike have MAP (since it is happening during your turn and you have already taken an attack action, which has been paused)? The attack trait makes it pretty clear that your second attack action (which in this case would be the reactive strike) would suffer from MAP. So for your "worst case scenario," a creature likely capable of knocking an enemy prone on a critical hit (which usually involves some kind of save or check vs a DC in the remaster) is now automatically getting MAP for its first actual attack roll against you and is much less likely to knock you prone in the first place, and it has burned its reactive strike for the whole turn on an attack with MAP.
That makes this strategy seem extra valuable against such a creature, not less.
No because Reactive Strike says "This Strike doesn't count toward your multiple attack penalty, and your multiple attack penalty doesn't apply to this Strike. ", so even if other reactions (like Opportune Backstab) would suffer MAP, Reactive Strike doesn't, and it never contributes.
If you try this against a creature with Reactive Strike you just eat a full bonus attack to the face, like everyone else.
This is were the disagreement is. I personally do not think they are observable to the extent that they can be used as a trigger for Ready.
I have to respond with a hard no here. That's not a thing.
That sidebar on Ready triggers has no text that would enable that objection hold any water.
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.
There is no sliding scale where at some point point of division, sub-steps "become invisible." That concept never even comes up. Again, that kind of objection would require some extra rule around certain actions being "atomic" or "too fast" to be valid triggers. You are making up a new restriction that does not exist. And it doesn't even prevent Ready:Dodge!
That Ready text has no "flavor requirement," and is timed exactly as the player dictates.
A player can legit say, "after the attack starts, but before it lands" and that passes the "in-world observable" check.
All attempts to flavor specific descriptive language are unnecessary and invite irrelevant objections like yours.
Someone beginning to Strike, and the impact of that Strike, are both in-world character observable events. These are not player-only mechanical concepts, they are not "a rules concept that doesn’t exist in-world".
Arguing about what descriptions of specific body movements "count" as post-commitment is not addressing this issue of blank check timing.
(the impact of a Strike is the only temporal reference point needed)
The Ready sidebar is a specific ban against rules concepts that don’t exist in-world, and is a general requirement of being in-world & char observable.
There is no rule about needing to dictate the exact body posture/etc of that exact frozen moment. You can use magical words like "before" and "after."
All that being an a&#@~** faux-laywering about the description of the trigger moment being "post commitment" will do is get your player to set: "an incoming attack is one inch away from impacting me" or some other RaW valid, yet conceptually silly trigger.
This is what I mean about ignoring the "real issue" of time-stop powers, while pretending a non-problem prevents it.
To be frank, even when attempting to think on this from a purely in-world PoV, the Leap/Dodge creating a whiff is how such a reaction would play out, even when attempting to go before the Strike was spent.
Attempts to set a trigger for "when the foe stops their movement / finishes ___ action" are the ones with verisimilitude problems.
You wouldn't be able to Leap at this moment, because there is no mutually observable time stop between actions. That's exclusively in the player's mechanical world.
Observationally, characters typically only know one action has ended *because* the next has begun; they notice __ doing something else now.
So every attempt to React just before a Strike is spent would instead trigger a Pause! after commitment, but before impact.
If you obey the rules concept of Reactions freezing time, then the "realistic triggers" complaint/argument only makes the Ready:Dodge outcome more likely to occur, lol.
It's rather annoying that if you actually think about it, the "but mah realism" argument is being mis-used that badly.
Again, there is no rule that bans mechanical language from Ready triggers. Only a "rules concept that doesn’t exist in-world" is forbidden.
Meaning, as soon as we recognize/agree that Strikes take some, and literally any, span of time to occur, a player can write a trigger to happen during that window.
A player can set a Ready trigger to: "As soon as I notice __ starts to make an attack" and that's valid, and will freeze time between start & impact.
Same goes for the anchoring on the other end: "just before the attack lands" is valid, and something that unambiguously is during that "whiff causing" time span.
SP, that "even if the trigger occurs in the middle of another action" exception does do what you say re: allowing reactions to be used during other reactions, but its primary purpose is to allow a creature to use one of their reactions even in the middle of their OWN action, since the general rule is that you may only take one action at a time. For instance, Reactive Strike to attack someone attempting to Leap away while you try to Strike them
But that doesn't mean the reaction RESOLVES immediately upon being triggered unless its text says so. Actions with Triggers only says, "When its trigger is satisfied—and only when it is satisfied—you can use the reaction or free action," but it doesn't say reactions interrupt, or occur retroactively, or anything Trip is attempting to use OTHER REACTIONS' specific rules to prove re: the secret rules for reactions that he thinks Paizo monks hid in the books with invisible ink. All the book says re: reaction timing is "if trigger occurs, then reaction can be used." There's no time freeze to resolve the reaction in the general rules, nor is there one mentioned in Ready
I'm sorry to say, but the "freeze time" until the Reaction resolves idea is the only way to run that text.*
The pf2 system literally runs on a sequential set of actions.
You cannot trigger a Reaction, partially execute that Reaction, then resume the triggering action, then go back to finish the Reaction. That's nonsense.
The nature of Ready only working with normal 1A actions means that you will (literally) never have a Ready situation that works differently than the Pause!-->Resolve-->Resume sequence of events. That whole readied action happens ("resolves"), and only then does the next event in the pf2 sequence get to be the triggering action/activity.
*In order to break that order of events, it would need to exist as rules instruction.
And surprise, that does exist, and rather frequently in the temporally muddied Reactions like Shield Block. The key being that the Reaction text has to inform the reader how that specific Reaction deviates from normal sequential chronology.
Free actions with triggers and reactions work differently. You can use these whenever the trigger occurs, even if the trigger occurs in the middle of another action.
Being able to trigger and use a Reaction "in the middle of another action" is as direct a rule as it gets dude. Yes, this text does mean one gets to finish their Reaction. A Reaction cannot be "used" until the whole R is complete; if it's 1/2 done, then it is not yet "used" (FFS, how is this needing to be explained?)
You are needing to argue that this text is "actually" trying to say that such a Reaction "only gets to start" at the trigger moment, and after that, the lack of text means that it's up to the GM to dictate how the Reaction somehow, sometimes, overlaps with the triggering action.
That is plain nonsense.
Dude, do not misquote text like that, wtf.
This limitation of one action per trigger is per creature; more than one creature can use a reaction or free action in response to a given trigger. 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.
That text is specific; discussing the edge case where multiple creatures Reacting to the exact same trigger means you now have 2 things happening at the exact same time.
Beyond disingenuous to pretend that was talking about Reactions being simultaneous with their "paused" triggers generally.
I'm worried that you missed the bit on the power of modifier phrases like "just before."
"I Ready a Stride to trigger just before I'm hit with an attack."
Good luck trying to argue with someone that getting hit is not char-observable.
(Again, the so called "wide" latitude on Ready triggers being observable does not address the issue of time-stop powers)
Is the GM's ability to restrict Ready triggers limited to observability? For instance, I would think a trigger of "anything perceptible" would warrant the GM to at least raise an eyebrow.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is the GM's ability to restrict Ready triggers limited to observability? For instance, I would think a trigger of "anything perceptible" would warrant the GM to at least raise an eyebrow.
I mean the GM has the ability to restrict whatever they want, they're the GM. Only the social contract inherent to the game with regards to player expectations makes GMs run the game "RAW".
Ultimately the GM can decide if a trigger is valid, the rules only specify four criteria, spread between Player and GM Core:
- It has to be a single action or free action you can use (so not Readying Twin Takedown if you don't have the feat and whatnot).
- It can't be a single or free action that already has a trigger. (presumably because this is just mechanically bad to do as a player).
- It has to be something that happens in the game-world (so no Readying for when Pete eats a dorito at the table).
- It has to be observable by the characters.
It's important that the full rules for Ready in the GM core actually say:
"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"
That notably isn't exclusive. The action has to meet those criteria, but that doesn't mean if the trigger meets those criteria you have to allow it as the GM. You can always just decide it's not valid and work with the player to find something you both agree on.
No, this is incorrect & backward.
The RaW states that the 1A activity does exactly the same thing in all cases.
Leap is Leap, same move distance, same procedure, etc. No one is giving it superpowers, and that is the entire (perceived) problem. You gotta engage w/ that, specifically.The "overpowered problem" comes from Ready, the Reaction, allowing too precise a "Pause!" trigger, which can contextually mean interrupting foe actions to prevent completion.
It is only the specific timing of the "Pause!" button slam that grants Ready the mid-Strike dodge power. There is 0 timing-based limiter on it.To paint that as "allow[ing] you to do things the 1 action activity can't do like dodge an attack." is to bark up the wrong tree.
The "problem" is not with Ready, or even with the Leaping PC. The "problem" is that the foe has already spent and committed those actions. Which is how such a dev oversight can happen to begin with.
You are flat out wrong. You are the one that is incorrect. In no way does ready allow you to convert a 1 action activity into a 100 percent dodge or anything the one action activity can't already do. You have no rules support for that any more than readying a strike when a spell is cast can disrupt it.
Some people can never admit when they are wrong. They just keep insisting they are right.
You are flat out wrong. You are the one that is incorrect. In no way does ready allow you to convert a 1 action activity into a 100 percent dodge or anything the one action activity can't already do. You have no rules support for that any more than readying a strike when a spell is cast can disrupt it.
Some people can never admit when they are wrong. They just keep insisting they are right.
Simply claiming to be correct with no argument nor rules support doesn't work.
* "Choose a single action or free action you can use, and designate a trigger."
* "You can use these whenever the trigger occurs, even if the trigger occurs in the middle of another action."
* [Ready sidebar on triggers being in world char observable]
Those 3 ingredients means that yes, via Ready, 1A movement abilities can be used in the middle of other actions.
If you have actual rules text that conflicts with this rather straightforward conclusion, then please share it.
The outcome of this "mid-action movement" is also very straightforward.
* "If an activity gets interrupted or disrupted in an encounter, you lose all the actions you committed to it."
Some people can never admit when they are wrong. They just keep insisting they are right.
King of ironies right there.
.
Here is yet another example that may have happened at your table, Ready:Grab
PC sets the Grab trigger to fire ASAP for a movement interruption.
Foe begins a Stride,
Special Reaction rule is invoked: "Reactions to Movement"
Despite the player setting it ASAP, the Reaction's effect kicks in after the first 5ft chunk of movement.
Once grabbed, though the foe should have most of their Stride remaining, they are immobilized, and this condition prevents further any further movement.
They have to let their Stride end and begin another action, such as Escape.
Yet this goes further, and instead of a Stride, the foe could Sudden Charge. The outcome is the same. Whatever the interruption rendered invalid for completion, is lost. Whatever is still possible, can continue. (Better hope that S Charge was just Immobilized and not Restrained...)
Saying that Strike is granted special "atomic" privilege is the definition of the special pleading fallacy.
You have presented no reason to allow Reaction-interrupted Strikes to have the special ability to ignore the normal rules and complete before the very Reaction that interrupts them.
Because when the system *does* want some things to have some amount of "atomic protection" it does make special rules for those scenarios.
Movement triggered Reactions can only interrupt after a 5ft chunk, (or after the entire trigger action if no square is exited)
The onus is on you to present a similar bit of rules to this "Reactions to Movement" text for your special Strikes. If the pf2e devs wanted Strike to have a similar exemption, they needed to have included one. Houserule to maximize your fun, but don't claim that's RaW.
.
Deriven, how would you rule this scenario:
A creature attempts to do a ranged attack, and is hit by a reactive strike.
The RS hits, but not crits.
The ranged attacker drops to 0 HP, unconscious & dying.
Does the unconscious creature get to finish and fire their shot? Despite being, ya know, Dying on the floor?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Dragon example above is not a good one, because Frenzy can target more than one PC, so even if one did the leap thing, the dragon could still wail on two other targets, and they're likely only using Frenzy if that exists.
I'm not so sure about that, tearing a single enemy to shreds is something a dragon absolutely would do, especially given how any one crit can recharge their breath weapon and let them lay waste to a whole group. I don't think this use case can really be handwaved that easily, and it's by no means the only action that includes multiple Strikes as sub-actions, Flurry of Blows being another example.
I'm actually a little surprised at the rancor being given to this idea, given how absolutely horrible it would actually be in play.
What is your best-case scenario? It would be an adversary closing to you, then you Leaping away and avoiding a 2 action powerful attack.
To do that, you wasted 3 actions (after all, you need to Stride back to it on your turn) and a Reaction.
Putting aside how not every character needs to Stride back to an opponent in this situation, trading three actions and a reaction to mess up a boss-level enemy's whole turn (and if we're including movement, they're going to need to spend an action moving towards you or another target as well) is a very good trade, which is why spending two actions just to take out even one of a boss's actions with slow is also considered effective.
This isn't really a case of rancor either: for my part, I simply don't see the basis in the rules to adjudicate that Readying a Leap with a Strike as a trigger would have you auto-disrupt it. The fact that this reasoning easily leads to abuse cases if we factor in Strike actions with heavy costs such as Draconic Frenzy, Spellstrike, and so on, and gets even worse if we extrapolate this to AoE spells and other such effects, is simply further evidence that this is probably not how this chain of events ought to be ruled. I don't see any harm in awarding a circumstance bonus against the triggering Strike if this action is used sparingly and in appropriate context, but I don't think the counterbalance to an overly costly action ought to be guaranteed denial.
I think I've found the reason why Strike "feels like" it's supposed to land.
The Reactive Strike family of Reactions are given a special ability that would not be possible via Ready:Strike, nor is a part of base attacks / Strike
Because of "Reactions to Movement" delaying the Pause! moment to after the first 5ft of movement, a Ready:Strike would whiff any time a foe's first 5ft of movement exited reach.
Reactive Strike also happens at the same moment in time, *after* the 5ft move, but its effect text ignores whatever the new reach situation may be. Because Reactive Strike says you make a Strike, you are able to.
This is easy to mistake for some form of chronology "simultaneous" thing, but the 5ft move still happens first, then then Reaction plays out (this means that a KO doesn't stop that move, etc)
This ability to hit a foe *after* they have exited reach is specific to Reactive Strike and its cousins. It's not a privilege that is given to normal attacks (unless the GM houserules it to be so).