Post/Author/DateTime	Post
the_rooster 02-26-07, 01:31 PM	One of my players was using Sudden Jump from the Book of Nine swords (allows a jump check as a swift action) to avoid attacks. I found this disturbing and potentially game breaking. He would wait for a fighter to charge him, and then while the fighter was moving, jump as an immediate action to no longer be in the fighter's path. Now I did some reading up on the rules and found that we had misread the ability and it actually said it was a swift action (which means it can only happen during his turn) btu this raised some questions. if a character has an immediate action when can he use it? The definition of immediate action says "at any time". So can an immediate action interrupt another character's action right in the middle (like as he's swinging a weapon or 10' into his 30' charge?), or should he have to wait until the action is done? For example, if a fighter moved 20', then swung his sword, should players have to wait until the fighter is done with the move action, then go before the standard action (attack) or could he use an immediate action 10' into the move?
FriendoftheDork 02-26-07, 01:35 PM	At any time. However, the effect of the action doesen't interupt like in MtG, so casting an immediate spell that provides +4 deflection bonus to AC AFTER an opponent has hit with his attack doesen't help much, as the attack has already hit. Casting a spell at the same time giving DR would help, as damage isn't rolled yet.
Kragg Bonemeal 02-26-07, 01:41 PM	There aren't too many "immediate" actions. As for spells, the big one is Feather Fall. If someone says that they have an ability/spell that is "immediate" and not "swift", double check before allowing it. Immediate can happen "any time". As in any time I say, "Wait! I'm popping this one before you roll." This could be for an AC booster (as long as called before the To Hit is rolled), or DR booster (before damage rolled), or Feather Fall (before the falling damage/distance) is calculated.
the_rooster 02-26-07, 01:45 PM	Thanks for the responses! Neither of those scenarios scare me. What he did exactly was say "Since I can sue this at any time, I will let him run the first 10 feet from his charge, then jump to the side." And since charge is a full round action, he basically lost his action for the round. Now I know that we misread and it never should have happened, but I'm wondering fro future uses if that was legal, or if there is some ruling somewhere that makes it more clear.
FriendoftheDork 02-26-07, 02:46 PM	Thanks for the responses! Neither of those scenarios scare me. What he did exactly was say "Since I can sue this at any time, I will let him run the first 10 feet from his charge, then jump to the side." And since charge is a full round action, he basically lost his action for the round. Now I know that we misread and it never should have happened, but I'm wondering fro future uses if that was legal, or if there is some ruling somewhere that makes it more clear. What's scary is that anyone can ready an action to move to the side, breaking the charge in the same way... Of course it means you cannot really do anything yourself, but it means you can postpone his attack until you are exhausted.
the_rooster 02-26-07, 04:18 PM	What's scary is that anyone can ready an action to move to the side, breaking the charge in the same way... Of course it means you cannot really do anything yourself, but it means you can postpone his attack until you are exhausted. Seriously? Wouldn't that mean I could ready an action to step to one side and gain an AoO on him as he ran by? Say I stepped forward diagonally in the middle of his charge...if he's "locked in" to his charge I would get an AoO on him as he ran by wouldn't I? This is why it makes no sense to interrupt his action. It's too open to abuse. There has to be some ruling on this that doesn't allow abuse of immediate and readied actions.
Lord Nedd 02-26-07, 05:34 PM	Seriously? Wouldn't that mean I could ready an action to step to one side and gain an AoO on him as he ran by? Say I stepped forward diagonally in the middle of his charge...if he's "locked in" to his charge I would get an AoO on him as he ran by wouldn't I? This is why it makes no sense to interrupt his action. It's too open to abuse. There has to be some ruling on this that doesn't allow abuse of immediate and readied actions. Your readied action happens before the condition you place, hence when the folks get to a certain position, you act and take your move. Heck, if you try and leave the square that you were in and move, as he charges, you could conceivably draw an AoO, if you were being threatened by his position. There is no reason that he needs to continue to the charge and exit the square that he is now in that would force him to draw an AoO, in your given scenario. IIRC, there is no reason why the charge would fail either, as he can still attack you if you are within his melee attack threat range with your 5foot step towards and diagonal of him. I think that the idea was that when he was within range, you stepped 5 feet to either side, thus staying out of his melee reach. YMMV and you may understand the situation better than I, -LN
the_rooster 02-27-07, 01:26 AM	Your readied action happens before the condition you place, hence when the folks get to a certain position, you act and take your move. Heck, if you try and leave the square that you were in and move, as he charges, you could conceivably draw an AoO, if you were being threatened by his position. There is no reason that he needs to continue to the charge and exit the square that he is now in that would force him to draw an AoO, in your given scenario. IIRC, there is no reason why the charge would fail either, as he can still attack you if you are within his melee attack threat range with your 5foot step towards and diagonal of him. I think that the idea was that when he was within range, you stepped 5 feet to either side, thus staying out of his melee reach. YMMV and you may understand the situation better than I, -LN So say I am fighting someone and I have a reach weapon while they do not. Is there anything to stop my character from readying an action every round to step backwards 5 feet and attack with his reach weapon when his opponent tries to attack? Thereby interrupting my opponent's attack to move out of his weapon's threat range and still get a swing? I know I'm blatantly abusing the readying action rules but is there something that would prevent this in the rules?
Echodork 02-27-07, 01:41 AM	So say I am fighting someone and I have a reach weapon while they do not. Is there anything to stop my character from readying an action every round to step backwards 5 feet and attack with his reach weapon when his opponent tries to attack? Thereby interrupting my opponent's attack to move out of his weapon's threat range and still get a swing? I know I'm blatantly abusing the readying action rules but is there something that would prevent this in the rules? If you make it impossible for a creature to continue his intended action (if you step out of his reach, for example), then you face a rules interpretation. If your DM is willing to rule that attempting an impossible action wastes your turn, then your loophole is sound. Of course, if I were DMing, I would hold you to that... any time you attempted to do anything impossible (move more than your max movement, try to attack after forgetting to draw your weapon, take 20 on a skill you can't take 20 on, etc) I'd declare your turn wasted and move to the next initiative. More likely, your DM will allow the creature to reconsider his "impossible" action. The creature will simply 5' step toward you and take his full attack.
the_rooster 02-27-07, 11:14 AM	I agree...but I'm the DM. I hate invoking rule zero. So when I said "he charges you" and the player stepped away, I said he stops and attacks you without the charge. He responded with, "but charge is a full round action, he can't." However, I think I found the way this is prevented. When you ready an action, your initiative gets moved to whatever init. you act on. So say my init. is 18 and I ready an action to step back and strike with my reach weapon when he tries to attack with his non-reach weapon. On 12, my opponent attacks so my readied action clicks on init. 12. Next round, I will act at the same time as my opponent (init. 12) and if I want to use the "readied action stepback" trick I have to give up this round of attacks, while he can easily take a 5 foot step forward and bash face. So I really only gain the advantage once. After that I'm giving up an attack to make one of his useless. If it becomes an issue, I will simply house rule that charge isn't a full round action, but is a standard action that can only be performed after you have moved at least 10' in a straight line, or a free action if you've taken a double move in a straight line. That's basically the same thing without the loophole.
Aminvelos 02-28-07, 12:22 PM	Charge action specifically states you can't take a 5 step after the charge. There is a good reason for this as there are many feats you can cheese on with this 5 step action. Readying an action is risky anyway. If the specified conditions don't occur then you just wasted an action. However you can purchase a special skill trick which allows you to change your direction once while charging. But if you are charging on an animal you'll have to obviously make a ride check and when you ready an action your initiative is suppose to change anyway.
pmurray@bigpond.com 03-05-07, 01:19 AM	There aren't too many "immediate" actions. As for spells, the big one is Feather Fall. Another is "Deep Breath", which is like feather Fall but for drowning rather than falling. The biig one is the Initiate of the Seven-fold veil class ability, which becomes immediate at level 4 or so. "The dragon breathes at you" "Zoop! Green Veil! Immediate Action!" Saved my bacon a few times.
otakutaylor 03-05-07, 03:40 AM	This is probably a rule that wizards will have to look over since immediates are now in the game, but I'd see this as like... an ammendment to Charge rules when immediate actions are a problem. When charging, a full-round action, sometimes your opponent will find a means to duck out of the way. These rules are to benefit the charger if the action isn't well thought out. When you start a charge, you aren't really charging until you hit the 10 feet mark, before that you're considered moving. After that point you are required to take the -2 to AC from charging in order to be allowed to use it, even if you stop your charge. If your target moved after the 10 foot mark, but before you reached the normal range for a move action, you can stop your charge and finish out a move action as normal, and the -2 penalty from charging is gone. After the point it becomes a double move action (for a normal 30 movement character this will be at 35.) If you stop your charge, you count as having used a double move action and the -2 is again removed, but since you have such forward momentum you can only choose to stop where you stand or continue in the original direction to wherever you can reach. A DM may allow a DC 15 Balance check to count it as a normal double move action and be able to not have to run in a straight line. The only reason I see this as viable is because of the rules in place for single and multiple attacks. You are allowed to start an attack and use your first attack of a round, see the result, and choose weither that was a standard action attack or the beginning of a full-round and continueing your attacks. For TWF, you have to take the penalty on the main hand if you want the option of using your other hand should you choose to use it. Thankfully, it's rare this'd actually happen.
Marcus Majarra 03-05-07, 04:31 PM	Except that it doesn't work that way. The rules in place for single and multiple attacks apply only to the standard attack action and the full-round full attack action. The only thing you can decide after making your first strike is whether or not you wish to continue. All other actions are resolved the moment they are initiated. For example, if you want to use two-weapon fighting, you need to declare this before you start attacking. You can't decide that, after making an attack with your primary hand at no penalty, that you wish to use two-weapon fighting. Similarly, if you've taken the penalties and felled your opponent with your initial attack, you do not lose the penalties until the start of your next turn, even if you do not take any additional attacks and move. When you charge, you're making a full-round action. It's not a combination of one or more move actions and an attack; it's a single action. You can't decide to change your charge into a move or vice-versa while you're moving. It's no different from a spontaneous caster applying metamagic to a spell; he can't decide to not apply the metamagic if he changes in mind while casting, since the spell's casting time was increased the moment he decided to use metamagic.
otakutaylor 03-05-07, 05:04 PM	That is how they are written; I posted how I think they should (at least to some extent) change with the new inclusion of immediate actions... Though I’ll admit, the way I have it written it's unnecessarily complicated. It's probably better to leave them as is.
the_rooster 03-06-07, 02:47 PM	That is how they are written; I posted how I think they should (at least to some extent) change with the new inclusion of immediate actions... Though I’ll admit, the way I have it written it's unnecessarily complicated. It's probably better to leave them as is. Which is why I said I think I'll change charge to a special free action only useable if you moved more than 10' this round in a straight line and were unobstructed by terrain, etc. Removes the complication and really only effects AoOs incurred during the move. Something like: Charge: This is a special free action that can only be used if you've moved more than 10 feet during your turn in a straight line and taken no other standard or move actions. if you do, you may choose to make 1 attack at +2 against a target you threaten at the end of your move. If you do this, you may take no further actions and your AC is -2 until your next turn. Probably not perfectly worded, but...
Marcus Majarra 03-07-07, 01:29 AM	Why is it necessary to change the charge rules anyway? As it is, evading one is mostly an issue of second-guessing your opponent (you have to ready yourself against the charge in the first place). As if it weren't enough, charge also allows a character the benefits of a double move AND an attack. I see it as fairplay to allow ready characters to easily avoid an enemy's charge.
the_rooster 03-07-07, 07:45 PM	Why is it necessary to change the charge rules anyway? As it is, evading one is mostly an issue of second-guessing your opponent (you have to ready yourself against the charge in the first place). As if it weren't enough, charge also allows a character the benefits of a double move AND an attack. I see it as fairplay to allow ready characters to easily avoid an enemy's charge. Because of immediate actions. Having anything that allows you to interrupt an opponent's turn AND make his turn 100% wasted is powerful. I may not have to, but if it comes up again and starts being abused to interrupt attacks and everything else--so the NPCs basically don't get a turn--then it wil need to be handled.
Marcus Majarra 03-08-07, 03:36 AM	You're overevaluating immediate actions. Or rather, you're underevaluating an opponent's decision to waste his actions. Let's say, for example, that a mean fighter wants to charge the enemy wizard, and the wizard evokes a wall of force between himself and the fighter. Now, the fighter doesn't know what spell the wizard cast, and he decides to charge but his entire action will be wasted nonetheless. The truth is: anyone can waste an action because an opponent prepares effectively. Using another charge example, a defender could use the ready action to attack a charging opponent, and if he didn't move on his turn, he can take a 5-foot-step as part of his attack. Thus, his opponent would charge, the defender strikes the opponent before the opponent gets to him, and he may even use his 5-foot-step to step out of the attacker's range in a way that even if the attacker continues moving in a straight line, the defender won't be within reach. Immediate actions exist because the ready action is mostly useless. As you stated, wasting actions is a pain, and the ready action is a big pain, since you're gambling based on what your opponent will do. I mean, if the opponent decides to do something different, you'll be the one who wasted an action. With immediate actions, you have worthwhile and balanced countermeasures.
the_rooster 03-19-07, 06:05 PM	I don't think immediate actions that allow you to move away from an opponent every turn are balanced. Readied actions are powerful because of the gamble you take. If it pays off, you own them. Immediate actions that allow movement often become "wild card" readied actiosn. Now once or twice a day isn't so bad. Every round and you find yourself moving away from an opponent, who then uses a move action to get closer, but you move again before he attacks. now he can either waste ANOTHER move action (ending his turn) or do nothing. The difference is exactly what you said: The truth is: anyone can waste an action because an opponent prepares effectively. Immediate actions exist because the ready action is mostly useless. With preparation, everything is potentially powerful. Now take that same power and give it to a player, but require no preparation...you have brokenness. Luckily nothing that I currently know of fits the bill. So for now we're safe.
JustinA 03-20-07, 12:11 AM	When you start a charge, you aren't really charging until you hit the 10 feet mark, before that you're considered moving. I find this to be too complicated. It's a special case rule riddled with all kinds of weird details. I'd rather just solve the problem with a nice, general case rule. We'll call it the Rule of Indeterminate Action. The Rule of Indeterminate Action: As long as the actions you have taken on your turn could be resolved using several different maneuvers, you can choose to complete your turn using any of those maneuvers. Thus, Sabrian moves 5 feet and steps out from behind a corner. Is that a 5 foot step? Is that the beginning of a move action? Is that the beginning of a double move? Is that the beginning of a run? Nobody knows yet. He looks down the hallway (not an action). He sees an orc down the hallway. He shoots an arrow at the orc. Is this the beginning of a full attack? Nope, the orc drops. Sabrian moves another 25 feet down the hall and ends his turn. This is universally applicable: You start charging across the battlefield and get 40 feet before the guy uses a readied action to run off in a different direction. Well, that's fine... you weren't charging, you were double moving. You change direction and veer to cut him off. It also resolves other problematic areas: You move 20 feet and then spot an enemy you weren't aware of... would you really finish the double move you declared? What if it was a pit you just spotted... would you really just keep walking right into the pit? You can also just think of this as the "you haven't committed to an action until you've got no other options" rule. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
Merestil Haye 03-20-07, 07:02 AM	I find this to be too complicated. It's a special case rule riddled with all kinds of weird details. I'd rather just solve the problem with a nice, general case rule. We'll call it the Rule of Indeterminate Action. The Rule of Indeterminate Action: As long as the actions you have taken on your turn could be resolved using several different maneuvers, you can choose to complete your turn using any of those maneuvers. Thus, Sabrian moves 5 feet and steps out from behind a corner. Is that a 5 foot step? Is that the beginning of a move action? Is that the beginning of a double move? Is that the beginning of a run? Nobody knows yet. He looks down the hallway (not an action). He sees an orc down the hallway. He shoots an arrow at the orc. Is this the beginning of a full attack? Nope, the orc drops. Sabrian moves another 25 feet down the hall and ends his turn.I hope Sabrian has Shot on the Run then, because otherwise he's just flagrantly exceeded his action limit. Once he starts moving, then stops to take another action, he cannot move again unless he has some ability that allows him to take an action while performing a move action, instead of (as the regular rules require) before or after the movement. If that movement was a 5' step then he has a move action left, but since he has changed position on the map cannot use that action to move. He can take other actions - maybe stash his bow to leave both hands free? This is universally applicable: You start charging across the battlefield and get 40 feet before the guy uses a readied action to run off in a different direction. Well, that's fine... you weren't charging, you were double moving. You change direction and veer to cut him off. It also resolves other problematic areas: You move 20 feet and then spot an enemy you weren't aware of... would you really finish the double move you declared? What if it was a pit you just spotted... would you really just keep walking right into the pit? You can also just think of this as the "you haven't committed to an action until you've got no other options" rule. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.netI have no problems with these examples. Provided the actions you have taken have no in-game consequences, then you can change your mind partway through. Examples of in-game consequences might include the following : A character with a weapon in each hand takes his first attack in a round but fails to apply a -2 penalty for two-weapon fighting. He cannot now gain extra attacks with his offhand weapon this round, even if a full attack with his primary weapon fails to drop his foe. A character moves away from a foe who threatened him with the Withdraw action cannot stop and perform a standard action because Withdraw is a full-round action. He might choose to move his speed or less, but cannot do anything else he could not have done had he moved the full allowed distance.
JustinA 03-20-07, 11:13 AM	Examples of in-game consequences might include the following : A character with a weapon in each hand takes his first attack in a round but fails to apply a -2 penalty for two-weapon fighting. He cannot now gain extra attacks with his offhand weapon this round, even if a full attack with his primary weapon fails to drop his foe. A character moves away from a foe who threatened him with the Withdraw action cannot stop and perform a standard action because Withdraw is a full-round action. He might choose to move his speed or less, but cannot do anything else he could not have done had he moved the full allowed distance. Yup. I agree with all that. In both cases, the actions you have already done (attacking without the TWF penalties; moving out of your first square without provoking AoOs) have already narrowed your options: You couldn't have done the former if you were TWFing, so you can't start TWFing now. You couldn't do the former without taking the Withdraw action, so you can't do anything else now. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net