Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 khift Nov 25, 2008 6:07:58	Wall of Vermin (Complete Scoundrel) is a standard action spell that specifically states "You cannot conjure the wall so that it occupies the same space as a creature." This makes it difficult to force the target to enter the wall; the target must do it of his own free will. But, if you can see your target, and you ready an action to cast Wall of Vermin with a trigger of 'the target moves closer to the group', when he triggers the readied action next turn, because "the action occurs just before the action that triggers it" at the time of the casting the spell is legal as it is cast on an unoccupied square, but as soon as the spell is finished the target completes his action and steps into the wall, thus forcing him to take it's effects. My DM swears up and down it doesn't work. He says one of two things would happen: 1. The spell is cast, the target moves forward, and then suddenly the spell is illegal because it was conjured into a space occupied by a creature. 2. The spell is cast, and then the target moves backward. To 1 I say: How can something that occurs after the casting of a spell make the casting of that spell illegal? It isn't remotely possible. There is nothing in the rules suggesting that this occurs. At the time of the casting -- the only time that matters -- the square is unoccupied, therefore it is legal. To 2 I say: How can you trigger something that would occur by moving forward by moving straight backward? The answer is: You can't. If you move forward, you trigger the action, and then you have to do what triggered it: move forward. Your action has already been declared. You can't change it after declaring. And you can't trigger something by doing the exact opposite of the declared trigger. To me, this is clear as day. But my DM has shot it down repeatedly, claiming the rules support him. And you know, I don't mind if he decides that readied actions work in a different way for his campaign. Just don't claim the rules support you when they clearly don't. Thoughts, comments, validation?
#2 natenate Nov 25, 2008 6:52:17	You ready an action. He tries to move. You take your readied action and conjure a wall in front of him, before he moves into the square. The wall appears normally, but suddenly there's a wall in front of him and he can choose not to continue moving forward. Your DM's version of 1. is completely wrong, though his version of 2. is certainly possible because your opponent can choose not to walk right into a wall that suddenly appears in his path. Your readied action interrupts his action, he is considered to only be occupying his normal space (one square for a medium opponent) while you're taking that readied action. You cannot create the wall in that space that he occupies, but you can put it in the space directly in his path as long as it is empty. When his action resumes he can choose not to finish it as planned, he can simply walk around it if he has more movement remaining for the round as long as he wasn't running or charging, or just stop moving forward so he doesn't walk into the the wall. The best you can hope for is forcing them to make a Reflex save vs the spell's DC to avoid running into it, and even then I'd give them a +4 to the save if they weren't running or charging. The only way you can actually force a creature through a readied wall is if it is flying and has Clumsy or Poor maneuverability. Even then the wall would have to be large enough that it couldn't maneuver around it or dive below it, and in that case it could arguably just drop straight down instead of continuing forward into the wall, possibly taking falling damage but avoiding the wall's effect.
#3 tana_san Nov 25, 2008 7:11:51	Greater Slide (Spell Comp.)?
#4 khift Nov 25, 2008 7:24:58	You ready an action. He tries to move. You take your readied action and conjure a wall in front of him, before he moves into the square. The wall appears normally, but suddenly there's a wall in front of him and he can choose not to continue moving forward. Your DM's version of 1. is completely wrong, though his version of 2. is certainly possible because your opponent can choose not to walk right into a wall that suddenly appears in his path. Your readied action interrupts his action, he is considered to only be occupying his normal space (one square for a medium opponent) while you're taking that readied action. You cannot create the wall in that space that he occupies, but you can put it in the space directly in his path as long as it is empty. When his action resumes he can choose not to finish it as planned, he can simply walk around it if he has more movement remaining for the round as long as he wasn't running or charging, or just stop moving forward so he doesn't walk into the the wall. The best you can hope for is forcing them to make a Reflex save vs the spell's DC to avoid running into it, and even then I'd give them a +4 to the save if they weren't running or charging. The only way you can actually force a creature through a readied wall is if it is flying and has Clumsy or Poor maneuverability. Even then the wall would have to be large enough that it couldn't maneuver around it or dive below it, and in that case it could arguably just drop straight down instead of continuing forward into the wall, possibly taking falling damage but avoiding the wall's effect. And where in the rules does it state that you can choose not to do something you've already dedicated to doing it? He can't take back his action. He already decided to move forward. This just occurs before he does move forward. "Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action." He is still capable of doing so, therefore he must continue his action. Find a takesies-backsies clause in the rules and I'll agree, but the way you are interpreting this you can trigger things by not doing the action that triggers them. Which makes no sense at all in any way, shape, or form.
#5 justicesays Nov 25, 2008 9:02:34	And where in the rules does it state that you can choose not to do something you've already dedicated to doing it? He can't take back his action. He already decided to move forward. This just occurs before he does move forward. "Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action." He is still capable of doing so, therefore he must continue his action. Find a takesies-backsies clause in the rules and I'll agree, but the way you are interpreting this you can trigger things by not doing the action that triggers them. Which makes no sense at all in any way, shape, or form. The persons "action" in this case is moving, As to him not moving forward as your trigger stated, I would ask HTH your character would know he was moving forward if he never actually moved. As a DM I would rule you can Only state ready triggers like a) "Looks like he is about to move closer" or b) has started moving closer (in which case the target would move at least 5 ft closer to you before your action triggered) In the first case it just happened that you were only reading his intention (which he then changed due to your action) In the second case the triggering action has already happened, and the continuation of the movement can be in any direction. In neither case would I allow someone to make a creature walk into a wall with no choice in the matter unless it was somehow moving against its will, the wall was present but invisible , or whatever. If someone insisted on this , next session their character might just walk into a prismatic wall that appeared in the street in front of them.... then they might have a sudden change of heart.
#6 BloodDragon Nov 25, 2008 9:51:26	And where in the rules does it state that you can choose not to do something you've already dedicated to doing it? He can't take back his action. He already decided to move forward. This just occurs before he does move forward. "Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action." He is still capable of doing so, therefore he must continue his action. Find a takesies-backsies clause in the rules and I'll agree, but the way you are interpreting this you can trigger things by not doing the action that triggers them. Which makes no sense at all in any way, shape, or form. It doesn't and there is none. However if you could point out where it says all movement paths are “set in stone" that would help clarify this. Rogue: I'm standing 15ft outside the room and I double move so that I am 30ft in the room. DM: Ok, when you move your first 5ft before you are even in the room you trigger the pressure plate and the entire room is engulfed in fire. Rogue: Alright... well I already said I moved 30ft in so I guess I'm incinerated. Damn. Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action. http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/initiativeActions.html Your spell is complete and cast before the creature moves into the square. So as per the text the creature must “continue his actions” which in this case is movement. However unless he is charging he can simply choose to “continue” moving in a different direction- Now if the creature was charging he is boned. How you worded your readied action indicates that the creature should have already moved at least 5ft (a sqaure) closer before your readied action even triggers. So I'm going off that assumption. Where are you positioning this wall? Is it directly adjustment to the creature starting position? Or further away? Positioning is important here.
#7 Wyvernhand Nov 25, 2008 11:50:46	On a similar nature, what about declaring an action that becomes illegal after you start. Say, you are standing on the other side of a waist high wall that is invisible for some reason from a raging orc. The orc charges you, thinking he has a straight line path. The orc hits the wall, what happens to the rest of his action? Is his turn over because charging and its a full round action, or can he salvage some part of his turn? What about if it wasn't a wall, it was an invisible fighter standing directly between you and the orc. Can the orc change the target of his charge after he reaches your square and realizes you are there (because you made yourself visible by AoOing him?)? Interupting full round actions is kind of a wierd thing in 3.5.
#8 snex Nov 25, 2008 12:08:00	On a similar nature, what about declaring an action that becomes illegal after you start. Say, you are standing on the other side of a waist high wall that is invisible for some reason from a raging orc. The orc charges you, thinking he has a straight line path. The orc hits the wall, what happens to the rest of his action? Is his turn over because charging and its a full round action, or can he salvage some part of his turn? What about if it wasn't a wall, it was an invisible fighter standing directly between you and the orc. Can the orc change the target of his charge after he reaches your square and realizes you are there (because you made yourself visible by AoOing him?)? Interupting full round actions is kind of a wierd thing in 3.5. im not sure the rules are well defined here, but as a DM i would say that the charging orc could choose a different action so long as he had not yet used up his turn. if the wall were 15 feet from him when he started charging, (and it didnt knock him out obviously), i would give him the rest of his movement and a standard action. if the wall were 40 feet away, then he has double moved and he can only perform the rest of his movement and free/swift actions. similarly, if you declare a full attack, but kill the opponent on the first attack, is the rest of your turn wasted? i would say no. you *intended* to full attack, but it turned out you only needed a standard action to kill the guy, so you should now be able to move. what about spells that require a full round action or greater to cast? can you give them up in order to perform an AoO or other immediate action? again i would say yes. your turns arent taken in isolation - new circumstances can change what you want and i see no reason you cant "think on your feet" so to speak, so long as you have the actions available.
#9 Wyvernhand Nov 25, 2008 12:29:28	similarly, if you declare a full attack, but kill the opponent on the first attack, is the rest of your turn wasted? i would say no. you *intended* to full attack, but it turned out you only needed a standard action to kill the guy, so you should now be able to move. Unless you declare a Flurry. You have to pre-declare a flurry, since the -2 penalty affects all of your attacks in the round, including the first. Thus you ARE commited to a full round action and I wouldn't think you could "pull out" after your first attack drops the foe. I'm talking about Flurry of Strikes from EWM, not the crappy Flurry of Blows from the crappy monk. :P
#10 khift Nov 25, 2008 18:36:18	The persons "action" in this case is moving, Moving forward, into the square in front of him, yes. As to him not moving forward as your trigger stated, I would ask HTH your character would know he was moving forward if he never actually moved. Readied actions in essence occur at the same moment as the actual action. However, there is no reasonable way to adjudicate two actions occurring simultaneously -- therefore, one had to go first, and the developers went with the readied action in 3.5 and in 4.0 they went with the triggering action. Regardless, they are both supposed to occur at exactly the same moment -- thus, the as he moves forward, you cast the spell. The text about the readied action occuring just before the triggering action is only to solve the problem of two actions happening simultaneously in the easiest, simplest, and most understandable way possible. As a DM I would rule you can Only state ready triggers like a) "Looks like he is about to move closer" or b) has started moving closer (in which case the target would move at least 5 ft closer to you before your action triggered) As a DM, you have the right to restrict the ready action, but it has no bearing on this discussion. I am not attempting to find out how a DM would judge the situation. I can do that myself, without a message board, by talking to my DM. I am attempting to find out how the rules treat the situation. The rules have no qualms with the trigger being "moves forward", therefore the point stands. If someone insisted on this , next session their character might just walk into a prismatic wall that appeared in the street in front of them.... then they might have a sudden change of heart. And this is why I am glad you are not my DM. If I ever had a DM resort to something this petty over a rules debate I would ask my fellow players if they want to go play some D&D at my house and then leave with whoever came with. That, right there, is not acceptable behavior for a DM. And yes, I used to be one, so I know how it is like. It doesn't and there is none. However if you could point out where it says all movement paths are “set in stone" that would help clarify this. The action that triggered the readied action must be set in stone for the action to trigger at all. If the action is not set in stone, then the response does not trigger until it is -- it cannot, because the action wouldn't yet occur. And I agree that you do not have to declare your movement in it's entirety, only each step. There is plenty of precedence for interrupting movement within the game rules. But, just as the rogue in your example cannot say "Well, I don't step on that square then so the trap never triggers" the enemy in this discussion cannot decide to not move forward because an action that triggers on their movement has already occurred. Your spell is complete and cast before the creature moves into the square. So as per the text the creature must “continue his actions” which in this case is movement. However unless he is charging he can simply choose to “continue” moving in a different direction- Now if the creature was charging he is boned. I discussed this above in this post, but I'll restate it. He is already dedicated to moving forward. If he has not dedicated to moving forward, the action would not, can not trigger. And having already dedicated to moving forward, after the spell is cast, he finishes the action: moving forward a square. How you worded your readied action indicates that the creature should have already moved at least 5ft (a sqaure) closer before your readied action even triggers. So I'm going off that assumption. I see no indication of movement already occuring. The trigger is "the enemy moves forward", and as soon as he goes to move forward the action occurs. You do not have to wait for him to move forward a second time, it triggers perfectly fine on the first square of movement. Where are you positioning this wall? Is it directly adjustment to the creature starting position? Or further away? Positioning is important here. The wall is being positioned in the square he is moving forward into.
#11 justicesays Nov 26, 2008 9:00:34	And this is why I am glad you are not my DM. If I ever had a DM resort to something this petty over a rules debate I would ask my fellow players if they want to go play some D&D at my house and then leave with whoever came with. That, right there, is not acceptable behavior for a DM. And yes, I used to be one, so I know how it is like. Really? You persuade a DM that your interpretation of the rule that gives you an advantage at the time is correct, then would throw your toys out of the pram when an enemy uses the same tactic against you? (having established that its perfectly legitimate and possesses obvious tactical benefits). Nice. I personally call this "realism", if the rules work one way for the players, then they work the same way for the monsters, and I dont generally accept arguments that "they are the only ones who would have thought of it" when its a case of rules technicalities. The action that triggered the readied action must be set in stone for the action to trigger at all. If the action is not set in stone, then the response does not trigger until it is -- it cannot, because the action wouldn't yet occur. And I agree that you do not have to declare your movement in it's entirety, only each step. There is plenty of precedence for interrupting movement within the game rules. But, just as the rogue in your example cannot say "Well, I don't step on that square then so the trap never triggers" the enemy in this discussion cannot decide to not move forward because an action that triggers on their movement has already occurred. In this case, the rogue has already moved into the trap square, then the trap triggers. If the DM was interrupting anywhere, it was before the rogue moves off the trap trigger. It is , in this case, the same as the "he has already moved 5ft, then you conclude he is moving towards you", examples above. It is not "against the rules" or "lacking rules support" to declare that your readied actions can only be based on things you can actually tell. You cant tell the guy is "moving towards you" until he starts moving that direction. The DM effectively has control over your readied action until he can conclude you know enough to allow you to use it. If the guy went invisible, then moved, your action wouldnt go off, even if he subsequently moved in your direction, the DM can say that you only know he is moving towards you once he has moved at least 5ft. This is even the case the other way. Consider the readied action "I cast shield as soon as someone tries to hit me". Man walks up to you, kills your familiar (which is in your square), sunders your staff, and disarms your wand. Never tries to hit you though, so you dont get to cast shield... Rogue walks up and feints (ie. pretends to attack you so you leave an opening) at you, so convincingly that you leave yourself flat-footed. You dont get to cast shield.... Literally every ready actions is effectively preceded with the words "seems like they are about to......" or "Has started to" as they can only be based on what you know at the time. Read this way, both the above examples would trigger the shield spell, as you would think he was about to attack you, regardless of the actual outcome. If you ready to attack the next enemy who comes through the door, but the next guy in is your friend the rogue (who, unbeknown to you is dominated ), then unless you make the sense motive check you wont get to attack. How about in the case that the person was going to attack you but died/was paralysed etc. due to your readied action? You're arguing that he will still hit you anyway? Or would you only claim that if you were trying to take down the BBEG, but would leave the game next week when the Orc kills you with his dying blow?
#12 khift Nov 26, 2008 18:07:22	Really? You persuade a DM that your interpretation of the rule that gives you an advantage at the time is correct, then would throw your toys out of the pram when an enemy uses the same tactic against you? (having established that its perfectly legitimate and possesses obvious tactical benefits). Nice. Because randomly killing off characters over rules arguments is perfectly acceptable DM behavior. You might as well say "rocks fall, your character dies". An enemy uses it on me in combat? Sure. But if, and I quote, I would "walk into a prismatic wall that appeared in the street in front of them" then yes, I would immediately leave your game and never return. I will not play with a DM who kills my character out of combat in pure spite. In this case, the rogue has already moved into the trap square, then the trap triggers. If the DM was interrupting anywhere, it was before the rogue moves off the trap trigger. It is , in this case, the same as the "he has already moved 5ft, then you conclude he is moving towards you", examples above. It is the same exact effect. A trigger occured due to his action. The only difference is that the game rules have the trap go after the action and the readied action occur before the action. In both cases, the action occurs. It is not "against the rules" or "lacking rules support" to declare that your readied actions can only be based on things you can actually tell. So, your argument is that moving forward is something a character cannot perceive? You cant tell the guy is "moving towards you" until he starts moving that direction. And this is when the effect triggers -- as soon as he starts moving in that direction. The rules then tell us to treat the readied action as occuring before the triggering action. All perfectly legal. The DM effectively has control over your readied action until he can conclude you know enough to allow you to use it. Which is when the guy visibly begins to move forward. Thus, exactly as I've said. If the guy went invisible, then moved, your action wouldnt go off, even if he subsequently moved in your direction, Agreed but completely irrelevant. The enemy can be seen here. the DM can say that you only know he is moving towards you once he has moved at least 5ft. The DM can say whatever he pleases, but this isn't an argument about what a DM would, could, or should say, this is an argument about what the rules say, and the rules have no qualms with this trigger and the interpretation I've shown. This is even the case the other way. Consider the readied action "I cast shield as soon as someone tries to hit me". Man walks up to you, kills your familiar (which is in your square), sunders your staff, and disarms your wand. Never tries to hit you though, so you dont get to cast shield... Rogue walks up and feints (ie. pretends to attack you so you leave an opening) at you, so convincingly that you leave yourself flat-footed. You dont get to cast shield.... Completely irrelevant. Those are situations where the action is not the triggering action. This is a situation where the action is the triggering action, therefore the effect triggers. Literally every ready actions is effectively preceded with the words "seems like they are about to......" or "Has started to" as they can only be based on what you know at the time. They do not have to be. The rules place no limits on what a readied action's trigger is beyond it be something perceptible by your character. The enemy moving forward is perceptible, therefore legal. Read this way, both the above examples would trigger the shield spell, as you would think he was about to attack you, regardless of the actual outcome. Yes, if worded like that then both of those readied actions would trigger shield due to their wording. Irrelevant to this case. If you ready to attack the next enemy who comes through the door, but the next guy in is your friend the rogue (who, unbeknown to you is dominated ), then unless you make the sense motive check you wont get to attack. Correct. The triggering action was not perceptibly fulfilled. In this case it is fulfilled, therefore it does trigger. How about in the case that the person was going to attack you but died/was paralysed etc. due to your readied action? You're arguing that he will still hit you anyway? If he could complete his action. Most dead people can't complete actions. The SRD is explicit about this -- "Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action." Or would you only claim that if you were trying to take down the BBEG, but would leave the game next week when the Orc kills you with his dying blow? I would claim this in every single way it is valid. If an enemy readies an action to move with the trigger being me moving closer to him, I moved closer to him, and he used his readied action to move into the square I am about to move into I would be required to make a tumble check to see if I can successfully tumble through his square -- and if not, he would end my movement and get an AoO. If my enemy readied an action to cast Wind Wall with a trigger of being the target of a ranged attack, I shot him with a bow, and he cast Wind Wall, then no, I would not be able to shoot a different target. Justicesays, as best I can tell from your posts, your problem is not with me but with the ready action ability in general. Your entire argument is, "How can you tell what he is going to do before he actually does it?" I don't know, but I know the rules work that way. Justify it however you want, or houserule it however you want, this is how it works within the 3.5 rules. The SRD is explicit about it. "Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character." This means, very simply, things occur in this order: 1. He acts. 2. Right before his action would take effect, your readied action occurs. 3. His action takes effect. This is how it works. This is what we're given. So this we must go off of.
#13 Chaos_Redefined Nov 26, 2008 19:39:12	Think of it this way: You, as a person, not a character, start walking and a wall appears in front of you. Do you believe it reasonable to say you would walk into the wall?
#14 khift Nov 26, 2008 19:46:09	Think of it this way: You, as a person, not a character, start walking and a wall appears in front of you. Do you believe it reasonable to say you would walk into the wall? I disagree with the premise. This is not a question of what is reasonable. This is a question of how the rules actually treat the situation. Rules are not always reasonable and inside an actual game, yes, they should be interpreted in ways that make them more so. We all know that and I agree with it. But that isn't the question here. The question here is, is there anything within the rules themselves that says this isn't the case? As far as I can tell, unless someone here who actually knows the material and can shine any light on this subject, yes, this is how it works.
#15 Chaos_Redefined Nov 26, 2008 20:35:14	I disagree with the premise. This is not a question of what is reasonable. This is a question of how the rules actually treat the situation. Rules are not always reasonable and inside an actual game, yes, they should be interpreted in ways that make them more so. We all know that and I agree with it. But that isn't the question here. The question here is, is there anything within the rules themselves that says this isn't the case? As far as I can tell, unless someone here who actually knows the material and can shine any light on this subject, yes, this is how it works. Wait... so you are disputing your DM because you know what he is saying is reasonable, but you think it is against the rules? Why not just play pun-pun? Edit: Realized it came across harsh
#16 khift Nov 26, 2008 21:34:14	Wait... so you are disputing your DM because you know what he is saying is reasonable, but you think it is against the rules? Why not just play pun-pun? Edit: Realized it came across harsh I'm not disputing my DM. I am trying to figure out how the rules work here. I recognize he has the right to rule however he wishes within his game. In fact, we've already come to an agreement at a middle ground and are happy with that. But, the question remains: how do the rules themselves treat the situation? Is this not how it works? And if not, where is the problem, where is the clarifying CustServ or Sage ruling?
#17 jobiejones Nov 26, 2008 22:04:45	In the PHB it says "If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action." Based on this I would say that the opponent would get a chance to stop himself. It does say he continues his action after the readied action, but I think this clause is there so that we know the readied action does not prevent the opponent from completing their action if they still are able. I think this goes in favor of your DM's ruling. At the very least, which we do in most of my campaign, house rule some kind of reflex save to see if the character could stop in time.
#18 khift Nov 27, 2008 8:33:38	In the PHB it says "If the triggered action is part of another character's activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action." Based on this I would say that the opponent would get a chance to stop himself. It does say he continues his action after the readied action, but I think this clause is there so that we know the readied action does not prevent the opponent from completing their action if they still are able. I think this goes in favor of your DM's ruling. At the very least, which we do in most of my campaign, house rule some kind of reflex save to see if the character could stop in time. And again, if he stops then the readied action never would have triggered in the first place. This readied action can not trigger until he would actually move forward. If he isn't actually going to move forward, the action can't trigger. The SRD/PHB says: "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it." This tells us his action still occurs -- mine just happens first. It doesn't say, "Unless he doesn't want to do it any more", it says that your action occurs before his action occurs and that yes, his action occurs. Also, consider this: If you can take back your action after an event occurs because of it, this opens up all kinds of situations where the rules make no sense at all. By your interpretation of the rules, Character A could ready his action to attack the next character that charges him, Character B could decide to charge CharA, CharA gets his attack in, and then CharB decides that since he is now in the single digit HPs he isn't going to charge and runs away instead, meaning he took a melee attack from across the room. If you follow the rules, this isn't possible. But if we use your interpretation, this, and many other nonsensical things like it, are possible.
#19 Senevri Nov 27, 2008 8:44:47	Because randomly killing off characters over rules arguments is perfectly acceptable DM behavior. Yes, but is it random? An enemy uses it on me in combat? Sure. But if, and I quote, I would "walk into a prismatic wall that appeared in the street in front of them" then yes, I would immediately leave your game and never return. I will not play with a DM who kills my character out of combat in pure spite. A(n invisible enemy) Wizard (you failed to spot) did it. At the level where Prismatic Wall becomes accessible this is something you might encounter, especially if you happen to have a wizard enemy who knows this and other appropriate spells. Entirely fair. Might not be fun, though. Kind of like, an encouter with, say, ten tenth-level sorcerers spamming Enervations. or Heartrippers. That's nasty at, well, most levels.
#20 hogarth Nov 27, 2008 8:55:18	If it was me, I would house rule that the opponent would get a Reflex saving throw (similar to trying to trap an opponent with a Wall of Stone or Transmute Rock to Mud, for instance); that seems to fit the spirit of the rules the best. But according to the rules, I'd say that it depends on the enemy's action and the trigger for the ready action. If the trigger is "as soon as he steps into this square" and the enemy is just moving, then I don't think it would work -- either he's in the square (in which case the spell won't work) or he's not (in which he can continue his move action in a different direction). However, if the enemy is charging, I don't believe he can just change his full-round charge action into a move action, so in that case it would work. Again, I think the spirit of the various wall spells is to allow a Reflex save.
#21 khift Nov 27, 2008 9:06:25	If the trigger is "as soon as he steps into this square" and the enemy is just moving, then I don't think it would work -- either he's in the square (in which case the spell won't work) or he's not (in which he can continue his move action in a different direction). He is already in the square when the trigger occurs. The rules then tell us to treat the readied action as occuring before the triggering action -- therefore, yes, at the moment he is in the square, but the moment before, when the readied action resolved, he was not. I agree with your interpretation of the spirit of the rules. This was what my DM and I settled on. The question of the actual rules, however, still remains.
#22 heax Nov 27, 2008 13:59:33	I got to reading this post and it interested me very much. However, Khift, I do not believe it is legal. Your trigger- "the target moves closer to the group"- activates when the target moves at least five feet towards your group. If you ready to cast the spell- and he is about to move feet forward- do you interrupt him before me makes any movement, or just before he resolves his action? Previous posts state- mostly from a pseudo "DM" perspective- that unless the target actually moves 5ft towards you you cannot cast the spell. If he is about to move into a square, without any movement up to that point, then you cast the spell into the area in front of him, he continues his action- which, being the same as your trigger, is "moves closer to the group." At no point anywhere in the rules does it say you have to decide your exact movement at the time of taking the action. I could dandy along, taking five feet of movement in a circle, then suddenly decide to move again in an arc. What I'm saying is this- yes, he is "moving closer to the group"- but that could be around your wall, right? Not in a line through your wall at all.
#23 khift Nov 27, 2008 15:01:24	I got to reading this post and it interested me very much. However, Khift, I do not believe it is legal. Your trigger- "the target moves closer to the group"- activates when the target moves at least five feet towards your group. If you ready to cast the spell- and he is about to move feet forward- do you interrupt him before me makes any movement, or just before he resolves his action? Previous posts state- mostly from a pseudo "DM" perspective- that unless the target actually moves 5ft towards you you cannot cast the spell. If he is about to move into a square, without any movement up to that point, then you cast the spell into the area in front of him, he continues his action- which, being the same as your trigger, is "moves closer to the group." At no point anywhere in the rules does it say you have to decide your exact movement at the time of taking the action. I could dandy along, taking five feet of movement in a circle, then suddenly decide to move again in an arc. What I'm saying is this- yes, he is "moving closer to the group"- but that could be around your wall, right? Not in a line through your wall at all. The timeline is very clear: 1. He moves forward a square, triggering the readied action. 2. Your readied action occurs, retroactively applying it before he moves forward. The readied action cannot trigger until he moves forward. And when he does move forward, your action resolves just before his action resolves, as per the text regarding readied actions. About moving around the wall, this depends on whether you rule that you must declare your entire move action at once or whether you declare each step one square at a time. If you declare the entire move action at once, yes, the spell triggers as soon as he declares his action and before he moves any squares. If you declare movement one step at a time then the spell does not trigger until the first square of movement that moves him closer to the group, sideways steps not counting. Either way, though, the result is the same as above. His action occurs, yours just happens first.
#24 arogenith Nov 27, 2008 20:03:38	I'm gonna be completely honest in my saying that if a character started arguing about this in a game I play in, we'd probably all ask them to leave the party and start a new character, have ours ditch them, or just stop inviting them to play. regardless, you're wondering about the rules, well if the trigger was "starts" moving towards the party, then I'd say it triggers before he manages to leave his square, remembering that a square is 5ftx5ft, not an infinitely small dimension and it is possible to move around 'within' the square. If your trigger was that he "moves" towards the party, I'd consider it has moved, not 'begins' moving, therefore your spell would be invalid and 'fizzle' because there's already a person in the square you're trying to cast it in. If you tried to cast it 2 squares away from the character, and he moves that first square, then your spell would cast, and he would merely have to walk around it. A charge or double move which would have to be indicated before beginning moving would be canceled, I'd still give them the move action, but no standard action, merely having used a move action would allow you to continue your move in another direction along with your normal standard action. Think about it in life, you're walking around, I stand in front of you, you keep walking into me because you decided to previously? Not a good idea....I might not like it too much, especially if I was 5 ft away from you, and you stood there staring at me for 6 seconds. Think about it in D&D, you're chasing after a fleeing goblin, he moves, you know you're faster, so you take a single move action after him down the dark corridor. After 10 ft you notice the goblin corpse splattered on the wall and the four minotaurs standing in a small circle around him, great axes drawn. Well, thats gonna be a painful 4 AoO's...and then full round attacks...and then another 4 AoOs. Personally, I would take my twenty feet away from the minotaurs....or at least stand still and throw the torch at them while yelling for my party
#25 khift Nov 27, 2008 20:39:41	The same argument over again. I'm getting really tired of responding to this. Arogenith, read my previous posts please. Even if the trigger occurs when he moves into the next square because your readied action occurs before his movement the spell is perfectly legal. I'm gonna be completely honest in my saying that if a character started arguing about this in a game I play in, we'd probably all ask them to leave the party and start a new character, have ours ditch them, or just stop inviting them to play. Why assume it happened during play? I know my place. Rules discussions occur outside the game, when they don't eat everyone's time. regardless, you're wondering about the rules, well if the trigger was "starts" moving towards the party, then I'd say it triggers before he manages to leave his square, remembering that a square is 5ftx5ft, not an infinitely small dimension and it is possible to move around 'within' the square. That wasn't the trigger, so this is irrelevant. If your trigger was that he "moves" towards the party, I'd consider it has moved, not 'begins' moving, therefore your spell would be invalid and 'fizzle' because there's already a person in the square you're trying to cast it in. The spell would be legal. It would be cast before he moved into the square but after he declared that piece of movement. Please refer to the rules before making arguments. If you tried to cast it 2 squares away from the character, and he moves that first square, then your spell would cast, and he would merely have to walk around it. And this isn't the case or remotely close to the case. A charge or double move which would have to be indicated before beginning moving would be canceled, I'd still give them the move action, but no standard action, merely having used a move action would allow you to continue your move in another direction along with your normal standard action. Again irrelevant. Not the case. Nor within the rules to give people free actions, although you could with your discretion as DM. Think about it in life, you're walking around, I stand in front of you, you keep walking into me because you decided to previously? Not a good idea....I might not like it too much, especially if I was 5 ft away from you, and you stood there staring at me for 6 seconds. The rules don't always make sense. This certainly stretches it. But the alternative makes far less sense, making it perfectly legal to make melee attacks against opponents all the way across the room. Also, consider this: If you can take back your action after an event occurs because of it, this opens up all kinds of situations where the rules make no sense at all. By your interpretation of the rules, Character A could ready his action to attack the next character that charges him, Character B could decide to charge CharA, CharA gets his attack in, and then CharB decides that since he is now in the single digit HPs he isn't going to charge and runs away instead, meaning he took a melee attack from across the room. If you follow the rules, this isn't possible. But if we use your interpretation, this, and many other nonsensical things like it, are possible. Think about it in D&D, you're chasing after a fleeing goblin, he moves, you know you're faster, so you take a single move action after him down the dark corridor. After 10 ft you notice the goblin corpse splattered on the wall and the four minotaurs standing in a small circle around him, great axes drawn. Well, thats gonna be a painful 4 AoO's...and then full round attacks...and then another 4 AoOs. Personally, I would take my twenty feet away from the minotaurs....or at least stand still and throw the torch at them while yelling for my party There is plenty of rules precedence for deciding your movement one square at a time. It doesn't change anything in this case how you interpret it. Refer to my previous posts for why. Please, people, read the whole thread before responding. I'm getting tired of saying the same thing over and over again. If you have a new argument, by all means, post it, but if it is the same one, especially if you didn't even bother to open your PHB and read how readied actions work like Arogenith didn't, don't post.
#26 mahrke Nov 27, 2008 23:49:20	It's pretty clear that the vast majority of posters here are completely missing the OP's point. He's not asking for a DM judgement call, or for 'what is reasonable'. You'll notice he's never given any evidence on his side for 'reasonable', just for the clear, plain, laid-out rules. From what I can see, yes, your enemy would bumble into the wall with his move action, and continue with his move action if possible (IE, if the wall does not trap him). This works much like the spell Ruin Delver's Fortune (or any immediate action spell for that matter) or the stack in M:tG. A person can't just change their action in the middle of the resolution of a reaction. Example: Bob the Fighter is adjacent to Thorg the Orc. Bob readies an action to attack Thorg if he moves away. Here's how the rules lay it out. Thorg moves away. Before he leaves his square, however, Bob gets his readied attack against Thorg, and then Thorg moves to the next square out This seems right, in contrast to a scenario where Thorg gets his first square of movement, and then Bob gets his attack, striking an opponent who is out of the reach of his weapon. So, yes, by the rules, your interpretation appears to be correct. Also, as a note, this interpretation also makes 'sense'. The guy is rushing forward to attack you, and a wall springs up in front of him. It is too late to stop his movement, and he bumbles into it.