Unfortunately both your questions hinge on understanding how gravity works in encounter mode, something which is surprisingly poorly defined.
Under normal circumstances, I don't think gravity would trigger Tangled Forest, because gravity isn't something you try to do and Tangled Forest specifies 'tries to move', nor would it apply to Stand Still because falling isn't an action.
But the megaladon ability includes 'splashes back down into the water' is explicitly part of the action.
So I think the sanest ruling here is that the action is disrupted but then gravity operates normally because neither action would stop falling.
Since Tangled Forest only applies for the one action, normal gravity would activate immediately afterwards.
In practice this means most of the time both abilities would technically activate but provide no real benefits (depending on how you specifically adjudicate falling).
Falling is forced movement so wouldn't provoke a Reaction (though stopping the monster as it launches itself upward would work).
Though iffier, I'd rule the same for 2, emphasizing the "tries to move away" which the shark isn't trying to do (and it's also not an action during which to be immobilized; it's zero time). In a more humorous, ad-lib, ad-hoc campaign I might allow it for the silliness, but in a regular campaign, even if you stopped the shark there's nothing to support it so it would keep falling/"trying to move away" until it succeeded. (Which means that low-level creatures that could fail on a nat 20 would remain restrained, which I'm okay with though it's kinda funny one could only catch villains not allies this way.)
|
For 1., way I read the RAW, the Disrupt on a critical of Stand Still only applies to Move actions that start in your reach. If the Leap started within your reach, it is disrupted. Otherwise it is not.
For 2., the shark is not using an action to move away from you, so it cannot "be Immobilized for that action".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to ignore "RAW" because sometimes it's just a trap and make for non-sense conclusions.
The crux of your question is: Can my specific abilities stop movement caused by gravity?
The short answer is no, as a GM I would not allow it to stop the shark from falling due to gravity.
For slightly more explanation, Stand Still doesn't apply, as falling is forced movement it's not a move action the shark is using. You could use it (ignoring issues of reach) as the shark is moving towards you...but the sharks reach is longer than or equal to yours so it doesn't actually stop the shark from getting close enough to attack you. After which the shark will fall back into the water. And also stand still only stops the movement on a critical hit.
Tangled Forrest stance has a similar problem as Stand Still. While falling the shark is under the effects of forced movement, and it is not using an action. So while you could strike it an cause immobilized, that immobilize only last for the action the shark is using...except it isn't using an action while falling so nothing happens. You could again attempt to do this while the shark is coming at you...but it's reach is still longer or equal to yours, so at best you immobilize while it's in range and position to strike you.
So ultimately no, these abilities will do nothing to stop the shark from falling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the megaladon ability includes 'splashes back down into the water' is explicitly part of the action.
It's true that's written in the ability, but I parse that as more a reminder of what happens, so it's clear. Even without that line, falling back into the water is the only sensible ruling, but without stating it some people might be confused about what happens.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Raven Black has a misunderstanding, the feat mentions nothing about starting movement in reach. And even goes out of it's way to say "or leaves a square during a move action it’s using" for its trigger. And the part about disrupting is tied purely to a critical hit.
Edit: Re-reading...I think understand how TRB arrived at that conclusion, though I don't support it.
"If the attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a move action, you disrupt that action."
He's splitting hairs that the trigger isn't a move action "within your reach" as defined in the trigger line if instead you rely on "or leaves a square during a move action it’s using".
I think that's being overly literal and a bad conclusion, but I can see how he got there.
And, if you ignore that issue/question, nothing changes because of what those abilities do (in that they fail to interact with forced movement due to gravity).
|
|
For 1., way I read the RAW, the Disrupt on a critical of Stand Still only applies to Move actions that start in your reach. If the Leap started within your reach, it is disrupted. Otherwise it is not.So if someone is 10 feet away and Leaps 30 feet past you horizontally, critting them with Stand Still does nothing because they started outside of your reach? It doesn't interrupt their leap?
From my reading, yes.
You still hit them and crit them. Which might end up in them finishing their leap quite dead.
What it does not do is retroactively stop them from Leaping. Unless they tried it within your reach and you interrupted this Move action.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For 1., way I read the RAW, the Disrupt on a critical of Stand Still only applies to Move actions that start in your reach. If the Leap started within your reach, it is disrupted. Otherwise it is not.So if someone is 10 feet away and Leaps 30 feet past you horizontally, critting them with Stand Still does nothing because they started outside of your reach? It doesn't interrupt their leap?From my reading, yes.
You still hit them and crit them. Which might end up in them finishing their leap quite dead.
What it does not do is retroactively stop them from Leaping. Unless they tried it within your reach and you interrupted this Move action.
Why would it retroactively stop them from leaping? That doesn't make any sense as an assertion for what should happen. Interrupting them mid leap could just meant that they can't move any farther.
Which is precisely what happens if you have reach and a creature moves through multiple squares you threaten with a stride: you're not required to take the reaction on the first square. In the case of stand still one of the triggers is "or leaves a square during a move action it’s using".
That can happen many, many times over the course of a moment and I can choose to use the reaction during any of them. Disrupting the action simply stops them at the point I do it.
Since Leap is also a Move trait action, this works the same way: while leaping it's moving through squares. When it gets disrupted, it stops moving.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1, since the Leap is a move action, the shark is now moving within the monk's threatened area and thus the monk gets a Stand Still reaction. Say the monk crits which disrupts the move action. What happens? Does the shark fall anyway? Does the shark simply start floating in midair? Or something else?
Both the Swim and the Leap could trigger Stand Still, and then we get into a can of worms on what happens if you Disrupt, since the rules for Disrupting Actions state:
"Various abilities and conditions, such as a Reactive Strike, can disrupt an action. When an action is disrupted, you still use the actions or reactions you committed and you still expend any costs, but the action's effects don't occur. In the case of an activity, you usually lose all actions spent for the activity up through the end of that turn. For instance, if you began to Cast a Spell requiring 3 actions and the first action was disrupted, you lose all 3 actions that you committed to that activity."
So lets say you disrupt the Leap. Do you disrupt only the Leap, in which case the Megalodon can't continue up, but maybe it can bite you, or do you disrupt the whole Breach activity, in which cases the Megalodon loses all actions it spent on it (2) and doesn't get the effect (it can't bite you).
But furthermore, falling is forced movement, and forced movement doesn't trigger Reactions (as explained here), so it can't trigger Stand Still. You'd need to catch the Shark on the way up (the Leap) or the run up (the Swim).
2, since the shark is moving away from the monk, Tangled Forest stance applies ("While you're in Tangled Forest Stance and can act, every enemy in your reach that tries to move away from you must succeed at a Reflex save, Acrobatics check, or Athletics check against your class DC or be immobilized for that action"). Unfortunately the shark fails the check to move away because he rolled another 1. Bad day for the shark. But what happens now? Does the shark fall anyway? Does the monk hold the shark up in mid-air? Or something else?
Tangled Forest stance doesn't apply since the Megalodon isn't using an action, it's technically just falling, and so it can't be "immobilized for that action" (because there is none).
Keep in mind the Megalodon isn't going to take falling damage from this because as the rules for Falling state:
"[...]if you fall into water, snow, or another relatively soft substance, you can treat the fall as though it were 20 feet shorter, or 30 feet shorter if you intentionally dove in"
Even if we assume it doesn't dive back in, 25-20 is 5 feet so it is in the clear.
What it does not do is retroactively stop them from Leaping. Unless they tried it within your reach and you interrupted this Move action.
It wouldn't need to, this is specifically addressed 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."
So you'd just stop them at the point of the Leap where they were disrupted. And then they fall, in this case, since the Leap was straight up.
For 1., way I read the RAW, the Disrupt on a critical of Stand Still only applies to Move actions that start in your reach. If the Leap started within your reach, it is disrupted. Otherwise it is not.
They don't have to start the action within your reach.
Actions with the move trait can trigger reactions or free actions throughout the course of the distance traveled. Each time you exit a square (or move 5 feet if not using a grid) within a creature’s reach, your movement triggers those reactions and free actions (although no more than once per move action for a given reacting creature).
So you could interrupt the leap part-way through as soon as the Megalodon leaves a space that is within your reach.
The Immobilized condition prevents the use of actions with the Move trait. It doesn't necessarily prevent all movement. Forced Movement or other effects that move you involuntarily from your current location can still work. They require a check against the Monk's stats such as their Fortitude DC or Class DC. But it would be up to the GM to determine what the check bonus would be for gravity pulling a Megalodon down.
So what I am expecting is that the Monk can make the Stand Still reaction as the Megalodon is moving upwards during their leap. If that crits, then the Monk can stop the leap at that point before the Megalodon reaches the height they were intending to get to and possibly before they are within attack range of the Megalodon's intended target. Similar for Tangled Forest Stance - it could prevent the movement of leap as the Megalodon is moving upwards if that movement would be away from the Monk (which it probably isn't in this case). I'm also expecting that the GM is going to set the check bonus of gravity to be something handwavingly insurmountable and not bother rolling it. Gravity is going to succeed at whatever checks the Monk player suggests and the end result is that the Megalodon falls back down.
Sorry for the double post, but I missed this in my initial reading because I forgot how Tangled Forest Stance worked, but:
"Say a monk is standing near a cliff that's 25 feet high overlooking deep water. The monk has the Stand Still feat (https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=5996) and is in Tangled Forest Stance (https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=6015)."
The Megalodon has 10 foot reach on it's bite, 15 feet reach on it's tail. Does your Monk have Reach from any other source? Because if they don't, the Megalodon won't be in your Reach at any point, so neither Stand Still nor Tangled Forest apply.
(I thought Tangled Forest gave you Reach, but it doesn't).
|
|
So lets say you disrupt the Leap. Do you disrupt only the Leap, in which case the Megalodon can't continue up, but maybe it can bite you, or do you disrupt the whole Breach activity, in which cases the Megalodon loses all actions it spent on it (2) and doesn't get the effect (it can't bite you).
Breach does not have the Move trait. It will not by itself trigger Stand Still nor be disrupted.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Breach does not have the Move trait. It will not by itself trigger Stand Still nor be disrupted.
No, but Swim and Leap both do. And the Subordinate Actions rule says that those actions still have their traits and therefore can still be reacted to.
I still stand by my reading as it makes the most sense to me. And it serves me well in this here case.
That is absolutely something that you can do for your games. But this is the rules forum. I'll stick to the official rules.
|
|
Breach does not have the Move trait. It will not by itself trigger Stand Still nor be disrupted.No, but Swim and Leap both do. And the Subordinate Actions rule says that those actions still have their traits and therefore can still be reacted to.
Quite true. But only the subordinate Move action would be disrupted I think.
I still stand by my reading as it makes the most sense to me. And it serves me well in this here case.That is absolutely something that you can do for your games. But this is the rules forum. I'll stick to the official rules.
So do I, and yet we disagree here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But only the subordinate Move action would be disrupted I think.
I would agree with that.
With Breach being a complex action of {Swim, Leap, Strike}, if the Monk disrupts the Leap action part way through, then the Megalodon would stop moving at that point. They would still be able to make the Strike, but they might not be in range of their original target (but would likely be able to target the Monk).
So do I, and yet we disagree here.
And I am not sure why.
Your idea that the Move action has to be started while within reach of the Monk in order to trigger Stand Still is not following the general rules for reactions triggered by movement.
It doesn't need to be written into Stand Still that you can react to each square of movement, because that is a general rule. And Stand Still doesn't have an override of the general rule preventing reacting to each square of movement.
So... I'm a bit confused. What official rules are you following for this case?
Friends, I know all the counter-arguments about leaving a square opening up the possibility for a critical-induced disruption. Even though it is not written like this in the feat.
I still stand by my reading as it makes the most sense to me. And it serves me well in this here case.
Genuinely confused at what you're suggesting her, the disruption is literally written explicitly into the feat. Like it literally just says "you disrupt that action" I don't really understand what the counter position here even is.
Your idea that the Move action has to be started while within reach of the Monk in order to trigger Stand Still is not following the general rules for reactions triggered by movement.It doesn't need to be written into Stand Still that you can react to each square of movement, because that is a general rule. And Stand Still doesn't have an override of the general rule preventing reacting to each square of movement.
Not to mention that it is literally written into Stand Still.
Trigger A creature within your reach uses a move action or leaves a square during a move action it’s using.
There's nothing ambiguous here at all. If you leave a square during a Move action, you trigger Stand Still, full stop.
So... I'm a bit confused. What official rules are you following for this case?
There doesn't appear to be one. The position being argued makes no sense whatsoever according to the rules.
It seems to be a case of reading a rule the way they think it should work and then arguing that's how it actually does work, because it absolutely does not work that way in the book.
|
|
"Stand Still
[reaction]
Feat 4
Monk
Source Player Core 2 pg. 121
Trigger A creature within your reach uses a move action or leaves a square during a move action it’s using.
You strike out when your foe tries to flee. Make a melee Strike against the triggering creature. If the attack is a critical hit and the trigger was a move action, you disrupt that action."
I read the Trigger part as defining 2 different possible triggers for Stand Still:
1. A creature within your reach uses a move action
2. A creature within your reach leaves a square during a move action it’s using.
I think this is why there are 2 requirements to "disrupt that action": first "the attack is a critical hit" and second "the trigger was a move action".
The latter I understand as referencing the trigger #1 "A creature within your reach uses a move action".
Way I read it, if the trigger is #2 "A creature within your reach leaves a square during a move action it’s using", then the second requirement for the "disrupt that action" is not fulfilled and the disruption just does not happen.
To me, it makes sense that you can disrupt an action that is started within your reach but not one that started before your opponent was in your reach.
But "leaves a square during a move action" includes a move action, definitionally. The trigger was a move action, because you're leaving a square during a move action. Like it says move action right there.
I read the Trigger part as defining 2 different possible triggers for Stand Still:
1. A creature within your reach uses a move action
2. A creature within your reach leaves a square during a move action it’s using.
Point 2 is just reminder text of the general rule for reacting to move actions.
There is effectively only one trigger here - an enemy using an action with the Move trait.
And the wording here is suspect, as Squiggit pointed out too.
"2 requirements ... second "the trigger was a move action".
trigger is #2 "A creature within your reach leaves a square during a move action it’s using", then the second requirement for the "disrupt that action" is not fulfilled
How can leaving a square during a move action that is being used possibly mean that the requirement "the trigger was a move action" was not met?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, it makes sense that you can disrupt an action that is started within your reach but not one that started before your opponent was in your reach.
I'll have to remember that one the next time a constable tries to physically stop me from entering a building.
"Nope, I started walking in 10 feet ago while I wasn't in your reach. You can't stop me now."
I read the Trigger part as defining 2 different possible triggers for Stand Still:1. A creature within your reach uses a move action
2. A creature within your reach leaves a square during a move action it’s using.
I think this is why there are 2 requirements to "disrupt that action": first "the attack is a critical hit" and second "the trigger was a move action".
The latter I understand as referencing the trigger #1 "A creature within your reach uses a move action".
Way I read it, if the trigger is #2 "A creature within your reach leaves a square during a move action it’s using", then the second requirement for the "disrupt that action" is not fulfilled and the disruption just does not happen.
That doesn't make any sense. The trigger is explicitly spelled out that they leave a square during a move action. If that happens, you can use Stand Still, because that's the trigger. That happens the entire time the creature is moving because the movement is literally part of the Move action.
You're creating a condition that does not exist and then claiming because that condition isn't met, it doesn't work. That means you're claiming an explicit trigger doesn't do what it says because of a condition you've created that doesn't exist in the rules.
To me, it makes sense that you can disrupt an action that is started within your reach but not one that started before your opponent was in your reach.
That has absolutely no basis in the rules whatsoever, and is directly contradicted by them. The action in question is literally happening while they're moving: that's what is causing the movement.
Do you actually think the way this works is:
1. You start using a move action.
2. You finish using a move action.
3. You move.
?
Because that's the only way this makes any sense at all and that is not how it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree with Tridus/Finoan/Squiggit, I do find it weird that Stand Still feels the need to add "and the trigger was a Move action" since Stand Still can only be triggered by move actions anyway.
I should really just say "If the Strike is a critical hit you disrupt the triggering action".
While I agree with Tridus/Finoan/Squiggit, I do find it weird that Stand Still feels the need to add "and the trigger was a Move action" since Stand Still can only be triggered by move actions anyway.
I should really just say "If the Strike is a critical hit you disrupt the triggering action".
Yeah. And this isn't the first time I have seen people get confused by reminder text that matches the general rule.
I think the worst one was Legacy Swashbuckler Battledancer. The override that allows them to gain panache when they beat the DC of any opponent was also used to somehow override the general Swashbuckler rule that any Swashbuckler style could get panache by beating the DC of their opponent whether they affected the opponent or not.
The Battledancer override wasn't that you only had to beat the DC. The Battledancer override was that it was compared to all opponents at the same time.
|
|
For the record, I used to quicly read the Stand Still feat and use it as you described.
Then someone raised a question about Stand Still on these boards some weeks ago, I read the feat more carefully and reached my current understanding.
Which I will use from now on even though it slightly penalizes my PFS Monks that do use Stand Still.
Because it is the simplest reading and makes the most sense to me.
I think I should be able to convince my PFS GMs to agree with this small nerf to my PCs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I should be able to convince my PFS GMs to agree with this small nerf to my PCs.
You absolutely should not. PFS is supposed to run by the rules. Not by whatever house rule interpretation you want to use.
Changing the rules because you don't think they should work the way they do is literally against the rules of PFS.
|
|
I think I should be able to convince my PFS GMs to agree with this small nerf to my PCs.You absolutely should not. PFS is supposed to run by the rules. Not by whatever house rule interpretation you want to use.
Changing the rules because you don't think they should work the way they do is literally against the rules of PFS.
Not a houserule. Just the RAW as I read it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, I used to quicly read the Stand Still feat and use it as you described.
Then someone raised a question about Stand Still on these boards some weeks ago, I read the feat more carefully and reached my current understanding.
Because it is the simplest reading and makes the most sense to me.
It is astonishing to think that we need a general rule that is the complement of the Specific Overrides General rule. One that says that if a specific rule agrees with a general rule, then the does not change the specific ability, item, or other rule element from how it works if the specific rule does not have that bit of text in it.
Do we really need this 'Reminder Text' rule?
How would you interpret Stand Still if it removed all of that reminder text and was printed as:
Trigger: A creature within your reach uses a move action.
You strike out when your foe tries to flee. Make a melee Strike against the triggering creature. If the attack is a critical hit, you disrupt that action.
This removes the reminder text from the trigger line about how reactions triggered by move actions work, and it removes the redundant text in the ability description about the trigger needing to be a move action (which is already required by the trigger itself).
So how do you interpret that version of Stand Still?
And why should this version of Stand Still be mechanically any different than the official printed version that has the reminder text in it?
I think I should be able to convince my PFS GMs to agree with this small nerf to my PCs.
For PFS, I hope not. Because then they would start trying to nerf other player's characters too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because it is the simplest reading and makes the most sense to me.
I think I see what you are reading this as. It took me a while to figure it out.
You are reading the trigger sentence as:
"A creature (within your reach uses a move action) or (leaves a square during a move action it’s using)."
Which is where you are getting the idea that the move action has to be 'used' (meaning started) within your reach.
But that is definitely not the simplest way of reading that trigger sentence. And that way of reading the trigger sentence contradicts the general rules for how move actions trigger reactions.
Edit: And I am going to question the idea that 'using' means 'starting' an action. What does 'during a move action it's using' mean at that point? Do they repeatedly start using the action again as they travel? No - 'using' means 'using' not 'starting'. The entire time the action happens and all of the distance traveled is 'using' the action. So that should be applied to the 'uses a move action' part too.
And it is potentially not even a game mechanics valid way of reading the trigger sentence. If the 'within your reach' part doesn't associate with the 'leaves a square' part, then any move action that an enemy uses that moves their location would trigger the reaction even if the creature never comes within the Monk's reach.
The 'within your reach' part has to apply to both clauses.
Read that sentence instead as:
"A creature within your reach (uses a move action) or (leaves a square during a move action it’s using)."
The first part is the mechanics for the trigger. The second part is a restatement of the general rule for reactions triggered by movement.
That is a much simpler way of reading the sentence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disrupting Actions:
Speaking of the Disrupting Actions rule and this scenario with Megalodon's Breach ability...
The example gives Leap as a case where you are reacting to and disrupting a move action part-way through the movement. In the example, the character isn't reacting to Leap at the beginning of the action. Otherwise there would be no question about transporting the creature back to the start of its leap because it was still there when the reaction happened.
But what about activities with subordinate actions?
...
Of course, I expect opposition to my take will fixate on that word "usually" in there.
From the opposition, I actually fixate on the word 'activity'. "In the case of an activity, you usually lose all actions spent for the activity up through the end of that turn."
On the rare case where you can react to the traits of the activity itself instead of the subordinate actions (such as spellcasting), then you disrupt the entire activity.
In the case of an activity where you aren't reacting to the traits of the activity, but you can react to the traits of one of the subordinate actions and disrupt that, then you are only disrupting the subordinate action - not the entire activity.
So yes, while you can react to spellcasting with Reactive Strike and disrupt the spellcasting part of Spellstrike with it, that wouldn't disrupt the Strike part of Spellstrike.
I can also see this being ruled on a case by case basis for each activity. Sudden Charge is an interesting example. If you disrupt the first Stride action, do they still get to use their second Stride action to continue their movement?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Double posting on the off-chance that things get pruned for being off-topic.
This was in the same thread where Trip was trying to bait me with his straw-man about how I would rule on Sudden Charge, if you want to go read the whole thing yourself and see where Raven got his new take.
I still think people are not understanding what straw-man attack is.
I opened myself up to valid claims of straw-man attack when I presented my understanding of The Raven Black's logic and brought up the problems that I saw with it. And if Baarogue is right and that isn't what The Raven Black is thinking and arguing, then it is in fact a valid rebuke for straw-man attack.
Which doesn't mean that the information I presented is not useful or reasonable. It just means that I haven't refuted The Raven Black's actual reasoning or ruling - I have only attacked my own ruling that is based on my misunderstanding.
Also, in general taking a proposed ruling and applying it to a different scenario isn't a straw-man attack. There might be some straw-man element to it if the proposed ruling wouldn't or shouldn't be applied to that new scenario, but the second person is applying it anyway based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the original ruling.
For example, if someone takes my proposed ruling that when disrupting a subordinate action, you only disrupt the subordinate action that you reacted to instead of the full activity, and applies that to Sudden Charge or Fleeting Shadow and asks pointed questions about how I would handle disrupting only one of the subordinate Move trait actions - that might make me uncomfortable. But it isn't a straw-man attack. No one has misunderstood or misrepresented my proposed ruling.
>Otherwise there would be no question about transporting the creature back to the start of its leap because it was still there when the reaction happened.
Just to be absolutely clear, there is no discussion (afaik - maybe I drunk-posted it once) where I have argued that disrupting Leap at the partway point will transport them back to the beginning of the Leap, whether the Leap was part of an activity or not.
Reasonable to clarify.
I'll also clarify that the comment is not about causing teleportation or not, it is about when you are allowed to react to the Leap.
Which is what The Raven Black is claiming here
To me, it makes sense that you can disrupt an action that is started within your reach but not one that started before your opponent was in your reach.
The example in Disrupting Actions regarding Leap makes no sense if you can't Disrupt, (and maybe can't even react to) Leap unless you react to it at the very start of the action.
-----
As for whether you fixate on "usually" or "activity" (just to spite me I bet :P), could you show me some examples of non-spell activities that have reactable traits?
Also reasonable to ask for.
I'll give that a definite maybe. Let me see here...
I'm seeing some spell-like abilities such as Howling Blizzard which has the Concentrate and Manipulate traits. It would also be disrupted fully if for no other reason that there isn't a subordinate action to react to.
Dig Quickly is similar but is not a spell-like ability. It also has no subordinate actions.
Searching for such things is difficult because activities don't announce themselves as such by trait or anything else that is searchable. Neither do subordinate actions.
Ah. Here we go. Slice and Swipe: (Strike, Steal). The activity itself has the Manipulate trait and could be reacted to with Reactive Strike.
So under my ruling, you could disrupt the entire activity and prevent the Strike from taking effect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How this works with subordinate actions is something I legit don't understand. Like with Doctors Visitation. You can Stand Still the Stride and disrupt that. But if my target is still in range, can I still use Battle Medicine?
I don't know. I'm inclined to say yes in the moment as a GM on the grounds that it makes sense since how is an action that can only disrupt movement now also blocking manipulate actions? This would be a case by case thing as in some cases it may not make sense.
But RAW? I'm not clear at all.
It's clear where a single thing is an activity or the activity itself has the trait that is being disrupted, but it's less clear when its a subordinate action since the rest of the actions in it may not be impacted at all (and may not even be able to be disrupted by the reaction).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a couple more activities that are like Cast a Spell where the whole activity has a trait, mostly in skill actions: Administer First Aid, Disable Device and Pick a Lock, all of which are 2 action activities with [Manipulate].
This is definitely a space that could use a bit of clarification though, that's for sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you believe spells plus examples like these are enough to account for that rule?
Spellcasting does happen a lot. So while it might be only one activity in the rulebook, it is one that comes up frequently. It looks like the intent of the devs was that if they didn't have that rule, then people would argue that if an enemy disrupts their Sorcerer's spellcasting, that it happens immediately and so they only lose the first action spent, not the entire action cost of the spell. So even if it only applied to spellcasting, it would still be a needed rule to have.
Ultimately, I don't have a problem with leaving it up to table variation on this one. Neither ruling is going to cause major problems.
I do think it is going to be more intuitive and likely what the players are happier with if disrupting a subordinate action only disrupts the subordinate action and not the entire activity.
If your Barbarian uses Sudden Charge to get to the enemy mage in the backline and gets their second Stride action disrupted, you probably want to be allowed to Strike at the enemy that interrupted your movement even though you can't reach the mage that was your first target.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sudden Charge is tricky because if an enemy is using Sudden Charge to run past the front line to get to an ally in your back line, and you roll a crit and Disrupt the first Stride action, it feels really disappointing to have the enemy simply use their other Stride action to move to your ally and then use the Strike as planned.
So I am trying to create a houserule (yes, it would be a houserule under either of the proposed RAW rulings from myself or Baarogue so far) where if you Disrupt one subordinate action, then you disrupt all of the subordinate actions that are duplicates - such as both Stride actions of Sudden Charge.
But then there is another tricky example activity to think about:
Hunted Shot. Ranged attacks are valid triggers for Reactive Strike. So if one of the ranged Strike actions gets disrupted, does the Ranger get to make the other one?
And I'm not sure what to do about that other than go back to ruling on activities case-by-case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a fair opinion to have.
But I still look at the RAW and notice the distinction between an Activity and an Action. And note that a Subordinate Action is still classified as an Action, not an Activity.
So when Disrupt says that when you disrupt an Action you lose that action, but when you disrupt an Activity then you disrupt the entire activity - then it means exactly that. When you Disrupt a Subordinate Action, you are Disrupting an Action - not an Activity.
It's clear where a single thing is an activity or the activity itself has the trait that is being disrupted, but it's less clear when its a subordinate action since the rest of the actions in it may not be impacted at all (and may not even be able to be disrupted by the reaction).
I feel like the answer there has to be that only the thing that actually interacts with the mechanic does. There's no real reason to assume disrupting a stride would necessitate disrupting whatever comes after.