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.
You obviously don't know me. I have admitted I'm wrong on a few things in this thread in regards to Zephyr Slip. I publicly admitted I was wrong about the summoner's shared hit point pool.
I don't mind at all admitting when I'm wrong. But on this you are the wrong that is wrong. 1 action activities cannot do things like 100 percent dodge that they cannot do innately.
As far as the ruling goes, if the target is reduced to zero hit points then they drop and cannot carry out the attack. Rules are clear on this. It's not making a 1 action activity do anything it can't do.
But if the attack hits or crits and the character doesn't drop, bow shot goes off just fine. It can't disrupt a bow shot unless it drops the target.
Once again, nowhere does it say leap allows you to 100 percent dodge an attack even if used as a ready action. You have to take the attack, then leap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought of something else we can compare to Ready:Dodge. The command spell, a two action spell that forces a Will save. A target that fails spends one action following your command, or three on a critical failure. If you order the target to drop prone or move away, they usually need another action to set things right.
Ready:Dodge is similar in that the foe wastes an action and you move away, forcing another action to pursue. But there are significant advantages:
1. No save.
2. Everyone can do it.
3. No spell slot.
4. Incurs MAP.
The only downsides seem to be:
1. Costs your reaction, too.
2. Everyone has to do it, or else the enemy will just target whoever didn't do it.
3. Command crit fail is nastier.
As far as the ruling goes, if the target is reduced to zero hit points then they drop and cannot carry out the attack.
Thank you for answering the question, which genuinely moves the conversation forward.
That means we have established that when a Reaction pauses an action in progress, the Reaction is capable of rendering the trigger action invalid for completion.
Even for a ranged Strike, we agree that chronologically the shot/impact happens at the very end, only after the Reaction has resolved.
And agree that being capable of starting the Strike, but being rendered unable to complete it mid-way through, causes it to fail.
That's a lot of common ground.
.
To keep away from the "Reactions to Movement" complication, let's use Mirror Thaum.
For 1A, they can project an image copy of themself. If there are already 2 of the Thaum, then this action also makes one of the existing Thaum disappear.
I think it's safe to also pretend we are talking about any 1A teleport option, but mirror being a custom thing means there's less potential for unintended rule chains.
The Thaum does a Ready:[Mirror's Reflection] to make an image. Trigger is if someone begins to attack one of their selves.
A foe begins to Strike the Thaum with a melee weapon.
You have already agreed that the actor trying to complete an action can be KOed or otherwise interrupted by some Reaction-caused change to cause their Strike to fail.
This test case is constructed to find out if, from your PoV, is it possible for some Reaction-caused change in the target (and with 0 change to the attacker) to also cause an action or Strike to fail?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ooh, what about Ready:Crawl? Imagine a melee bruiser Strides in and tries to Strike you. But he fails because you Crawled away too fast. So he has to Stride up to you and end his turn.
Ooh, what about Ready:Crawl? Imagine a melee bruiser Strides in and tries to Strike you. But he fails because you Crawled away too fast. So he has to Stride up to you and end his turn.
Time-stop powers OP, plz nerf.
I mean, yeah. Resisting the urge to make special-pleading vibes-based rulings means that silly stuff like that is RaW legal.
(but you can always talk w/ your players, and later make house rules to preserve the immersion. Genuinely, that's a good GM thing to do sometimes)
Kinda comes with the territory of Reactions existing in a turn based game.
This test case is constructed to find out if, from your PoV, is it possible for some Reaction-caused change in the target (and with 0 change to the attacker) to also cause an action or Strike to fail?
I think I've asked this a similar question a few times before on this site. If someone becomes unable to act in the middle of an action they are performing, does the action complete? Does it stop immediately? Even if it wasn't disrupted? Are spell slots and other costs paid? Could both attackers end up Striking each other down?
I think I've asked this question a few times before on this site. If someone becomes unable to act in the middle of an action they are performing, does the action complete? Does it stop immediately? Even if it wasn't disrupted? Are spell slots and other costs paid? Could both attackers end up Striking each other down?This test case is constructed to find out if, from your PoV, is it possible for some Reaction-caused change in the target (and with 0 change to the attacker) to also cause an action or Strike to fail?
The devs decided to prioritize function over flavor there; their system puts events in a discrete order sequence, one after the other. Hence the Pause! style reactions, even to the point of Reactions pausing other Reactions.
That makes it waaay easier to adjudicate interruptions (which yes, can cause fails/whiffs/fizzles, etc.).Because that dev choice created such a rock-solid procedure, the only way for things to be "GM adjudication needed" and truly simultaneous that I know of is for multiple Reactions to trigger off the same event.
That genuinely does put them at the same moment in time, which is the point at which the devs just say "good luck, you got it" to the GM.
That "real simultaneous" can happen kinda easily; if 2 creatures Reactive Strike to the same trigger. Which one hits first / second could make a BIG difference in Dying value, lol.
That's rapidly approaching a strawman of such size where spontaneous combustion is a danger, lol.
Yes, like with all actions, the player and GM need to be working together to play the game, not fighting each other and seeing what they can get away with. Something can be RaW legal, but "too stupid to permit" by the GM.
I've seen GMs intervene when a player was about to make an action too out of character for the PC. Needing to hit pause, to explain the ramifications and context, and why the PC as presented "would probably not do that." On paper, that's everything the GM is not supposed to do, which is why every single rule comes with a couple contextual ***s.
.
The relevant nugget is that there is 0 limitation upon Ready's timing of trigger and Pause! moment. Nor alteration to the contained 1A.
I think I've asked
This test case is constructed to find out if, from your PoV, is it possible for some Reaction-caused change in the target (and with 0 change to the attacker) to also cause an action or Strike to fail?
thisa similar question a few times before on this site. If someone becomes unable to act in the middle of an action they are performing, does the action complete? Does it stop immediately? Even if it wasn't disrupted? Are spell slots and other costs paid? Could both attackers end up Striking each other down?
There is zero rules language on this. So ask your GM, they'll probably handle it on a case by case basis.
[...]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.
That's pretty good instruction as to the general case.
Like with the specific "disruption" keyword, interruptions have identical outcomes. Reaction-based changes can make interrupted actions invalid for completion, even though the action(s) have been spent.Any part of the activity / action that already happened before the Reaction's Pause! has already happened, and does not get erased or anything.
IMO the rules are pretty clear that after the Reaction finishes, the initial action's required conditions need to still be valid for it to complete, else it is lost.
It's certainly possible for there to be odd actions where the GM needs to adjudicate some kind of "partial whiff" as per the example in Disrupting Actions
[...]The GM decides what effects a disruption causes beyond simply negating the effects that would have occurred from the disrupted action. For instance, a Leap disrupted midway wouldn't transport you back to the start of your jump, and a disrupted item hand off might cause the item to fall to the ground instead of staying in the hand of the creature who was trying to give it away.
But the idea of Reaction-caused fails/whiffs is sprinkled around the system, such as Reactions that inflict conditions like Stunned, Grab/Restrained, etc.
I previously voiced a concern that Ready:Dodge would stack too easily with slowed 1, effectively making it slowed 2. But now that I think about it, the entire party would be spending 2 actions and 1 reaction each to accomplish this. That's kinda worse than slowed 2.
And as for a solo melee bruiser being completely shut down by this, does any such monster exist? Even low level animals tend to have high Speed, flight, or move/attack action compression so they don't get completely invalidated by ranged skirmishing.
And as an aside, Ready does limit triggers to things the PC user can observe. But why are there actions that don't have that limitation for their triggers/requirements? For example:
Sense the Unseen: You fail to Seek.
Hidden Paragon: You fail to Hide or Sneak.
Aquatic Ambush: The monster is in water and undetected.
These are circumstances the user couldn't possibly know about, yet you can react to them.
Because that's not a general rule for reactions. There is no general rule for how reactions work aside from Actions with Triggers, which is then informed and modified in Limitations on Triggers and Reactions to Movement. Any other "observed" or "discovered" rules based on compiling how the plethora of vastly different reactions work aren't worth the paper they're written on. What we have to adjudicate Ready is its text and the guidance in GMC. Rules that are specific to ReadyAnd as an aside, Ready does limit triggers to things the PC user can observe. But why are there actions that don't have that limitation for their triggers/requirements? For example:
Sense the Unseen: You fail to Seek.
Hidden Paragon: You fail to Hide or Sneak.
Aquatic Ambush: The monster is in water and undetected.These are circumstances the user couldn't possibly know about, yet you can react to them.
That's not my point. Ideally, something built into what a creature can do, be it a feat you've selected or a monster's inmate ability, shouldn't be literally impossible to perform without out-of-character knowledge, since relying on such knowledge is generally discouraged in TTRPGs.
I have talked smack against one of those Reactions before, it breaks the concept of secret checks for the GM to prompt the player that their PC failed to perceive something, etc.
In my opinion, those few are genuine "design mistakes" that stick out like a sore thumb.
But text is text, so even if those specific reactions break some fundamental rules, you gotta do as they instruct. (or just house ban / remake them)
I was trying to make an encounter between four level 1 PCs and a level 4 daeodon (some kind of boar) to illustrate the ability of Ready:Dodge to trivialize an encounter. But then I realized the boar actually did have a way to succeed.
Boar goes first. Let's say everyone is spread out and he only gets to KO or kill Valeros.
Merisiel draws ranged weapon and Readies Stride.
Ezren and Kyra each do the same.
Boar charges (2 actions) at Merisiel, who dodges. Boar Strides to Merisiel and ends turn.
Merisiel Strides away and Readies Stride.
Ezren and Kyra each Strike and Ready Stride.
If boar only relies on its charge and Strike, there is no way for the boar to hurt any of them. Unless...
Boar Strides to Merisiel and Readies Stride.
Merisiel Strides away. Boar reacts and catches up with her. Merisiel Readies Stride.
Ezren and Kyra each Strike and Ready Stride.
Boar Strikes Merisiel, who dodges away. Boar charges at Merisiel and KOs or kills her.
Two down, two to go.
Alternatively, the boar could Ready Strike for when Merisiel moves, potentially knocking her out before she Readies again.
[boar example encounter]
Yup, and because *every* PC has to Ready:Dodge, or else the foe attacks the one who did not, this actually helps to balance that "design snag" of action imbalance when one team outnumbers the other.
Each side needs to burn 2x[party size] just to set up the "first swing certain dodge," a rare time where the side with fewer actors(actions) is favored. And every PC that had to commit, but didn't use their Ready:Dodge, just had 2A go up in smoke. So the fewer foe attackers, the more wasteful.
This tactic also is just not feasible for PC parties with other actors like Animal Companions, as someone/ally will just get wrecked.
.
To be clear, while more abundant Ready use could help the "action imbalance problem" some, this isn't a super impactful balance fix or anything.
A single foe fight will, as always, still be completely gutted by Slow + Grab (and or Trip). If they even can gain a 2A chunk within the PC's onslaught...
I'm not sure. Reactive Strike doesn't bother with these semantics for ranged attacks. It just says "the creature... makes a ranged attack" and we accept that the reaction resolves before the attack roll but after the attacker commits to the action. "Makes a ranged attack" is observable and happening in-world, right?
I'm not sure. Reactive Strike doesn't bother with these semantics for ranged attacks. It just says "the creature... makes a ranged attack" and we accept that the reaction resolves before the attack roll but after the attacker commits to the action. "Makes a ranged attack" is observable and happening in-world, right?
The issue is that they are selectively omitting a small bit of text from the Ready sidebar in a manner that changes the meaning of the text.
Those claiming that "Ready cannot use game mechanics" are removing half of the "cannot ____" requirement.
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.
Translating the quote, you have 2 halves, each of which itself has 2 components*.
The "must ___ & __"
and the "cannot ___ which ___s"
For a Ready to fall afoul of the "cannot" rules, it needs to be both blanks at the same time.
This is the step that's not computing for some. They see a Ready trigger meeting one cannot ___ as disqualifying.
.
Quote Translation:
Must: [be in-world] & [observable to PC]
Cannot: [be a rules concept] which [does not exist in world]
*Because the only way to invoke the "cannot" side is the trigger meets both blanks, it's more accurate to say that there are 2 required "musts" and 1 single "cannot" rule.
.
Once you understand that much, it also reveals the the "cannot" half is pretty much a restatement of the "must" requirement in reverse, just to really drive it home and remove ambiguity.
Ready triggers need to be things the PC can observe in-story, which excludes things the player, but not PC, knows.
.
Again, there is 0 "ban on mechanical language" here. That would make Ready a silly / impossible to use mechanic, but this time around I'll not waste space repeating the examples outcomes of that interpretation.
The devs had a very specific outcome they wanted in gameplay around Reactive Strike and movement, and ended up writing the R Strike family of reactions as those with a power unavailable to normal Strikes.
Because the devs wanted the Pause! style of Reactions, but also wanted "Reactions to Movement" 5ft atomic protection, they had a bit of a problem.
They wanted gameplay where one can Stride into mutual reach against a foe w/ R Strike and not trigger it. But, if one Strides out of mutual reach, that will get smacked by an R Strike.
This doesn't really fit with how the system looks like it should work normally. Why not R Strike anyone who enters your reach? Why can it only trigger on the exit?
By the normal Reaction rules, that could be a valid trigger. But that's just the way the devs wanted R Strike to function, to allow Stride in, but not out.
To do that with the existing rules, R Strike is written very carefully so it's trigger is simply blind to the Stride in. This detail makes itself rather well known to most players very quickly.
It's a specific weakness/blindspot of R Strikes to keep its power down a bit.
.
But, once you read that "Reactions to Movement" rule, it seems like those "exit reach" R Strikes do not make sense, and ~should whiff. Once you read that text, it's 100% clear that R Strikes happen *after* the move outside reach. It's not before, nor simultaneous with the 5ft move.
The easy to miss part of R Strike is that it trades away the "enter" half to gain a specific override to normal reach limitations.
While invisible if you assume the swing happens before the move, the reaction's text specifically gives it the ability to ignore reach and even cover/obstruction considerations of the destination square. (like LoS being broken by a wall. R Strike still happens)
Rephrased: because the R Strike text says you get to Strike, (after the 5ft move) you get the specific power to do so (even when a normal Strike would be impossible).
Some reactions and free actions are triggered by a creature using an action with the move trait. The most notable example is Reactive Strike (reproduced below). Actions with the move trait can trigger reactions or free actions throughout the course of the distance traveled. Each time you exit a square within a creature's reach, your movement triggers those reactions and free actions (although no more than once per move action for a given reacting creature). If you use a move action but don't move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability.
Some actions, such as Step, specifically state they don't trigger reactions or free actions based on movement.
Reactive Strike's ability to ignore reach is *not* something you could do with Ready.
If a PC tried to copy RS, and triggered off movement, the "Reactions to Movement" text kicks in, forcing the trigger Pause! moment to after the first 5ft move, and the attack would whiff due to being outside of reach.
(there is genuinely no other way to rule such a Ready:Strike, the Reaction only even *begins* at that moment, there's 0 simultaneous activity)
However, the Ready:Strike copy doesn't have to write it's trigger to carefully omit the "enter" half like R Strike does. It would be perfectly legal to swing a Ready:Strike as soon as a foe moved *into* reach.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure. Reactive Strike doesn't bother with these semantics for ranged attacks. It just says "the creature... makes a ranged attack" and we accept that the reaction resolves before the attack roll but after the attacker commits to the action. "Makes a ranged attack" is observable and happening in-world, right?The issue is that they are selectively omitting a small bit of text from the Ready sidebar in a manner that changes the meaning of the text.
Those claiming that "Ready cannot use game mechanics" are removing half of the "cannot ____" requirement.
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.Translating the quote, you have 2 halves, each of which itself has 2 components*.
The "must ___ & __"
and the "cannot ___ which ___s"For a Ready to fall afoul of the "cannot" rules, it needs to be both blanks at the same time.
This is the step that's not computing for some. They see a Ready trigger meeting one cannot ___ as disqualifying..
Quote Translation:Must: [be in-world] & [observable to PC]
Cannot: [be a rules concept] which [does not exist in world]*Because the only way to invoke the "cannot" side is the trigger meets both blanks, it's more accurate to say that there are 2 required "musts" and 1 single "cannot" rule.
.
Once you understand that much, it also reveals the the "cannot" half is pretty much a restatement of the "must" requirement in reverse, just to really drive it home and remove ambiguity.Ready triggers need to be things the PC can observe in-story, which excludes things the player, but not PC, knows.
.
Again, there is 0 "ban on mechanical language" here. That would make Ready a silly / impossible to use mechanic, but this time around I'll not waste space repeating the examples outcomes of that interpretation.
You are over-complicating a simple rule to achieve an outcome that the rule doesn't allow or encourage.
It all comes down to DM caveat. If you want to allow it, allow it. I won't allow it at my tables. I don't think you have any RAW and definitely not RAI support. It's something you seem to want to allow and doing all kinds of word backflips to convince everyone else it's within the rules when nothing supports what you want to do as a Ready action, much less finding the obscure actions that even do this with clear rules.
Not sure why you are pushing this so hard. You don't need anyone else's approval if you want to allow it as a DM or your table wants to allow it.
The trigger being valid, and therefore the strat, are ultimately GM fiat.
As far as I can tell, it's not powerful, let alone broken. Any encounter that could be default killed with this seems like it could also easily be default killed by other means. Even the ogre warrior has javelins handy.
But what's all this about Ready:Strike not working against an opponent that leaves your reach? For movement based reactions, doesn't the reaction occur before the target makes it out of the square?
But things become much, much simpler if you don't allow the targeting of specific steps of attack resolution. That way you can sidestep all these timing issues and focus on producing the most sensible outcomes.
Yup, and this is why adding a houserule to give actions like Strike atomic protection was my suggestion for GMs worried about this.
___________________yes, Trip is wrong about that just as he's been wrong about everything else since he's starting from his desired exploit and working backwards, bending everything he quotes to support that instead of starting with the rules. The Reactions to Movement exception he began this thread to highlight is what makes Reactive Strike work, not any specific text in Reactive Strike. And it would make a Readied Strike triggered by movement work too
Sigh, please read the text before you make such an easy to debunk assertion.
Some reactions and free actions are triggered by a creature using an action with the move trait. The most notable example is Reactive Strike (reproduced below). Actions with the move trait can trigger reactions or free actions throughout the course of the distance traveled. Each time you exit a square within a creature's reach, your movement triggers those reactions and free actions (although no more than once per move action for a given reacting creature). If you use a move action but don't move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability.
This existing rule explicitly delays the timing of Reaction Pause! moments, similar to the suggested house rule to prevent interrupting Strikes halfway. Pf2's movement atomic protection instead breaks it up into 5ft chunks, where all Reactions can only happen after each chunk, never before, nor simultaneous.
The effect of this rule is that even if you were to make a Ready trigger for as soon as you sense movement, that Pause! moment only happens after the first 5 ft is complete. That overriding of a Reaction's stated timing is abnormal, hence the need for a rule to create that contextual override behavior.
This means that you only *start* to invoke the meat of the any Reaction text *after* that 5ft movement has happened. This is universal, even a Stand Still crit disrupt results in 5ft of movement. Something without atomic protection, like a RS-disrupted spell, results in 0 spellcasting effect before being interrupted.
Because of the 5ft move, a Ready:Strike attempt could be ineligible due to reach issues, just like a touch spell would. The 5ft move essentially interrupts and goes between the trigger and the Ready:action, so all targeting requirements of the Ready action must still be valid post 5ft move.
Reactive Strike does not have that problem. Even though the 5ft move still interjects and happens before the meat of the Reaction executes, there is no "if you still have reach" requirement. You just make a Strike.
__________________
You are over-complicating a simple rule to achieve an outcome that the rule doesn't allow or encourage.
I'm actually keeping it simple by not making vibe rulings, then need to scramble to invent explanations for apparent contradictions caused by said vibe rulings.
As far as I can tell, Ready:Dodge is RaW because that "pause!" mechanic is how all Reactions operate by default.
The attempted target poofing out of range during the pause is a downstream logical outcome of applying the same rules evenly.
That "hey guys, I don't think you're going to like this RaW I've found" is literally the whole point of the thread, lol.
If this idea offends yalls sensibilities so badly, just have the cojones to make a quick houserule to give Strikes pause protection, lol. Why is that so hard.
You have already agreed that interruptions like a Reactive KO will prevent the triggering Strike from firing/completing.
You have yet to explain how this actor-interruption whiff is correct, yet somehow the the target disappearing via a Ready:Teleport, does not result in a similar whiff.
That inconsistency entices explanation. Which I am asking you to provide.
I still don't understand. Where is it stated that Reactive Strike has to be after each 5 foot chunk rather than before or during the chunk?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is a much simpler way to look at the problem holistically rather than trying to do a weird super precise RAWR dive.
If I am a player thinking about trying this, how likely is my GM to say, "Sure, no problem, you can choose to ready a reaction to move your character has away from an enemy after they have begun an attack action, declared a target, but before the attack roll, wasting the attack action and gaining MAP?"
If the answer is "likely," then you don't really have to rules deep dive it anymore. Your GM said yes. If the answer is "unlikely," what makes you think that a pretty obscure rules debate about how and why this should work, with very little clear and obvious evidence, is going to change that answer?
The bottom line is that this topic is a conversation of intense GM fiat that is probably something that is going to pop up once or twice ever as a thing worth trying. If you are excited about trying it, talk to your GM in advance if you don't want to get burned.
If you are a GM and you are trying to figure out whether to allow it or not, it is much more important you think through what effect it will have on your table and your game than whether it fits squarely within the RAW. Even in PFS, this is not something that your player is going to burn you on if you just make a ruling in the moment based upon your own feelings about how and when readied actions can work.
It would be a pretty bad use of Paizo development resources to spend a significant amount of time trying to be any more clear about readied actions than, "fundamentally, talk to your GM explaining what you are trying to accomplish and they will decide what a fair trigger will be and when it will occur." After all, readied actions are very much in the realm of "make something up to do that doesn't really fit cleanly in a turn-based RPG and doesn't have to be computer game or competitive table top game precise to work."
As a GM, I find it much cleaner to have readied actions go off between discrete actions as much as possible and don't think it is strange for the targeting of a strike to be something that, in world, is happening before the physical strike action is really taking place...and thus the reaction can and should go off before the strike action occurs at all rather than in the middle of that action, because "turns" themselves are a pretty reality breaking abstraction and actions within a turn even more so. Having to treat PF2 like MtG would be a very quick way to get me to leave PF2.
I still don't understand. Where is it stated that Reactive Strike has to be after each 5 foot chunk rather than before or during the chunk?
The reactions to movement text makes 2 conditional changes to the normal Pause! ("even if the trigger occurs in the middle of another action") flowchart.
Changes to that execution order, when dealing w/ [move] triggers.If a trigger is a move action, but it never leaves the square, then the entire move action happens first. After that, triggered reactions can Pause! and execute.
Even if a PC has a trigger "as soon as I sense movement" their Reaction still goes *after* the entire triggering move is done.
If a trigger is a move action, but does leave squares, the triggered reaction only hits Pause! and plays out after a square has been exited. Not before, nor simultaneous. This is the 5ft chunk atomic protection mentioned previously.
If you Leap, Stride, etc, you exit a square first, *then* Reactions happen (Pause!), then you get to resume and exit the next square, etc.
.
The pre-remaster version is slightly different, with text:
... Each time you exit a square (or move 5 feet if not using a grid) within a creature’s reach, your movement triggers those reactions and free actions (although no more than once per move action for a given reacting creature). If you use a move action but don’t move out of a square, the trigger instead happens at the end of that action or ability.
That makes it a little more clear that even when inside someone's reach, Reactions to movement only [pause:reaction-goes-now] after each 5ft chunk.
.
Trip, this "reaction pause!" thing is nonsense of your own creation, and does not exist in the books in any form. There is no universal reaction time freeze or whatever you want to call it. Stop it. Get some help
... 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.
Not everyone is a comp sci major. That "Pause!" is a descriptive way to explain how pf2 sets its execution order; it is the result of the system not liking simultaneous actions, and doing what it can to minimize them into a rare edge case.
If you React to a manipulate action, spell, etc, the rules are crystal clear that this is does not result in 2 simultaneous events.
There is no ambiguity on which happens first, and which second. The trigger invokes the Reaction, which executes immediately, in the middle of that triggering action.
Descriptively speaking, this is a Pause! event that delays the triggering action so the Reaction goes first, and in the case of the Reactive Strike family, they can outright disrupt and cancel the triggering action from completion.
Executing the Reaction is itself the "pause," because the trigger is frozen and delayed while the Reaction text is executing.
That's not open to interpretation, and would significantly change the game if a GM decided to alter those rules on Reactions going first.
The key "problem" created by the RaW rules is that the trigger is responsible for setting when the Reaction gets to interrupt and execute immediately, it's a totally blank check.
And the system is full of example Reactions with triggers that interrupt after actions have been committed, but before they finish. Here's a new example, Preternatural Parry: "Trigger: You're targeted by a Strike or a spell attack roll, or you're about to roll a saving throw against a spell effect."
I doesn't really matter how hard you try to debunk the argument by shooting the messenger here, especially because these are not weird rules never used. This is what has already been happening under the hood at ~99% of tables. The "pause, reaction time" pseudo-mechanic has just not been scrutinized like this.
The only reason to block Ready from a similar trigger is because the GM has added a house rule to make it so. (Which is not a big deal to do)
Actions With Triggers sets the general rule to: trigger happens, then reaction.
It does?
You can use free actions that have triggers and reactions only in response to certain events. Each such reaction and free action lists the trigger that must happen for you to perform it. When its trigger is satisfied—and only when it is satisfied—you can use the reaction or free action, though you don't have to use the action if you don't want to.
I guess it could be interpreted that way. If the reaction must occur in response to a trigger, then the reaction can't happen before the trigger. But I would think you could respond to the trigger as it's happening rather than having to wait until it finishes. The Simultaneous Actions section seems to indicate that this is the case.
And is Reactive Strike actually creating an exception here? Its trigger is "A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action or a move action, makes a ranged attack, or leaves a square during a move action it's using." It is not "A creature within your reach uses a manipulate action but hasn't resolved its effects yet; uses a move action or leaves a square during a move action it's using; or makes a ranged attack but hasn't rolled yet."
Does the exception purely arise from Reactive Strike including movement as a potential trigger? Its ability to disrupt move manipulate actions? The disruption only occurs if the reaction is resolved, and only against manipulate actions. If the trigger is a ranged attack, does that entire attack resolve first?
Yes, it can disrupt because it says so, but that doesn't affect the timing of the reaction, does it? We know this reaction doesn't happen after the trigger, because there's no point in disrupting something that already resolved. But the ability to disrupt isn't actually changing the timing, right?
Actually, thinking about it again, there is no way to jump away between targeting and the attack roll. Those are purely mechanical steps that don't exist in world at all. Functionally, if the trigger is supposed to be "before the creature can hit me," you'd have to wait until after the attack roll to find out if the attack was going to be a hit, and while there are reactions that can trigger off of something like that, those are very specific abilities with a lot of special rules text explaining how they work.
If a creature moves up to attack you, you have functionally, in world, been targeted before the creature moves. Mechanically, I think that doesn't sit well with some people because in turn-based combat, targeting happens at a specific time in the middle of an attack action, but that is just not how anyone in world would see it. If you are going to jump away before being attacked, you have to do it before the attack action occurs. Otherwise you are jumping away after the attack resolves.
It doesn't say the disrupting action has to be "timed" to resolve before the action it's disrupting. The disrupted action is still spent, but "the action's effects don't occur." This is well illustrated in how Counterspell works. The enemy caster fully Casts their Spell, and you can see their spell manifestations (which is what allows you to auto-ID it), and only then do you attempt to disrupt it with your Counterspell - because Counterspell says so. There's no MtG-style timing to track. They work because they say they work
If the Cast a Spell action had completed, wouldn't the spell effect have already happened? It sounds like there would be nothing to disrupt.
You make it seem like there's this space in between an action being used and its effects occurring that reactions triggered by "they use a ___ naturally tap into.
This is different than counter spell though. This is almost identical in narrative to nimble dodge. There is no reason a readied action should be better than an ability given through a class feat. Nimble dodge allows for a trigger that readied actions don’t because they can utilize a purely mechanical trigger that doesn’t exist in the real game world resolution of actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, Nimble Dodge costs only a reaction. No setup required.
It is perfectly good to add a rule to prevent Ready: Dodge for game balance concerns.
The main "raise awareness" I'm doing is alerting GMs ahead of time so they will not be surprised mid-session by this being RaW.
(While also hoping for more Ready use to inject some tactical spice into pf2.)
Actually, thinking about it again, there is no way to jump away between targeting and the attack roll. Those are purely mechanical steps that don't exist in world at all. Functionally, if the trigger is supposed to be "before the creature can hit me," you'd have to wait until after the attack roll to find out if the attack was going to be a hit, and while there are reactions that can trigger off of something like that, those are very specific abilities with a lot of special rules text explaining how they work.
This doesn't work. It's just untrue to claim there's no in-world moment between a Strike starting, and it landing. You are inventing this need to wait, that simply does not exist.
There are many, many Reactions that use the targeting step as a valid point to Pause-->Reaction time before any swing is made. Their text treats this as normal Reaction behavior, no special override needed. The moment of Reaction is entirely up to whenever the trigger specifies. The "middle of" examples do not involve any rules unavailable to all Reactions, it's simply when their trigger is written to fire.Moreover, a PC outright writing their trigger with the "targeting step," while a standard thing within pf2 that shouldn't spark GM disapproval, is not required for Ready:Dodge.
By the base RaW, Reactions happen as soon as the trigger conditions are met, which means in the middle of the hostility, not after.
Every "Trigger: an enemy ___s at me" Reaction can only trigger and fire after that action begins, but before it's effects happen. Your example of "already being targeted" during a Stride is just not true. That's not when that happens.
Note how many Reactions specify they trigger only after damage has been delt. They need to, else those Reactions would interrupt sooner.
A "Trigger: a foe Strikes at me" fires as soon as these conditions are met. This means the foe has already begun to swing with a target of the PC.
In practice, you've just wired another path to this "targeting step;" after the Strike has been paid for, but before the attack roll's hit/miss impact.
Many Reactions do have retro-causality to affect things in the past, but such mechanics are outright unavailable to Ready.
You simply cannot React to a specific action *before* it begins, that's outright impossible.
Unless you just add a houserule to create that mechanic.
Trigger: You attempt a melee Strike against your opponent, but haven’t rolled yet.
If you hit, your opponent becomes frightened 1. If your opponent is using Perception for initiative when this ability is used, they become frightened 2 instead.
This "middle of Strike" is such a valid point to Pause-->Reaction, that you can even interrupt your own Strike before impact, rofl.
Yeah, I brought up reactions with secret triggers earlier as weird because one would think any reaction's trigger would have to be observable in-world for the fiction to make any sense.
For instance, the Lesser Death has status sight seemingly for no reason other than to justify its reaction's trigger including concentrate actions.
It is probably confusing to most players, since it is not listed in the Ready activity description in the player core, only on page 27 of the GM core, but triggers for the ready action have an explicitly different constraint than any other reaction in the game, so it is not inherently a good idea to think (as a player) I can just choose the same trigger for my readied action as another reaction.
The only reason it feels like a readied jump could disrupt an attack action in progress is because mechanically there is this step of "declare that I am making an attack action, then choose a target for that action." In world, that step doesn't exist, in fact the choice to make an attack against a specific target probably happens at the start of the creature's turn. If circumstances during that character's turn change what they do, or whether they make an attack at all (like they run into an invisible wall in the movement action before an attack) the the creature actions somewhat rewrite the narrative of what happened during there turn from what the player or GM intended.
From an in world perspective, there is only before the attack, during the attack, and after the attack. The decision that "during the attack can mean between targeting and rolling the dice" exists as an in world game element is confounding to me because the die roll is not happening in world. If you wait to leap away until the attack is in progress, then you have to allow the dice to roll because the die roll is not a step that the character can perceive. It is happening concurrently to targeting step for the characters in world. Other reactions absolutely can break this moment into discrete units because no other reaction has this specific restriction about needing to be observable in world. In other words, the logic of "observable in world" is irrelevant to reactions generally, it only matters for readied actions so it is a mistake to get into the weeds about what triggers other reactions allow.
The rules of page 27 even specify further, "find out what their character is trying to specifically observe. If they don’t have a clear answer for that, they need to adjust their action."
The goal of "disrupting an attack action in progress so that the action is wasted and that MAP is accrued" is not observable, as "moving away right before a creature can potentially hit me" is actually observable and happens before the attack action occurs, even if it requires understanding creature intent before the explicit targeting step of an attack action occurs, that is why this is explicitly called out for readied actions to be subject to open-ended GM arbitration instead of following a precise script of order of operations. If the GM decides that creatures have no intention to attack creatures they are moving next to until they declare spending an attack action and then targeting a creature, then the GM probably should not allow "ready:dodge" as a valid action in the first place. Dodging attacks happens in the dice, not in the order of operations of actions. In the very rare instances where a series of events might pre-empt a die roll from being possible, that should always be the result of very specific rules exemptions called out in particular abilities, not a contentious way of interpreting a general action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[...] People wielding weapons absolutely do target and do hand-eye actions before successfully connecting, and it is absolutely the case that victims can react to that by moving while/in the midst of that hand-eye action taking place. [...]
I Ready to Leap away when the orc does the hand-eye actions to target me.
As the orc moves up to you (with his first action), he probes your defenses with a feeble axe swing. Your readied trigger is fulfilled so you leap away! The orc then chases after you with his second action and brings his axe crashing down from above.
Adversarial GM or are they just leaning into the narrative idea that not all weapon/character interactions are Strike? As soon as they are in range, they are Threatening you by harassing you with their weapon.
Sure, the characters can probably differentiate a full strength swing from something else but if you need a full workflow diagram and a short story to set up your ready trigger, you probably shouldn't be using it in that manner.
As stated before, the problem arises from the Ready trigger originating in the narrative space trying to impose mechanical effects when the narrative space is not well defined.