# My @!@#! Player abusing Feather Fall



## two (Jan 28, 2005)

Ok.  This is really really ticking me off.  GRRR!!!

Player X, known as Player X so that I won't use a thousand punctuation marks, wanted to research a cantrip.  I said -- sure.  I wanted to look at the final cantrip of course, to make sure it was ok.

My Player, Player X, came up with the "Screw U" spell.  It creates a glowing middle finger, which waggles as an opponent.  That's it.  It lasts one second.  Player X wanted the spell to be a "free action" to cast, like Feather Fall.

I thought:  ok.  Has no mechanical effect if he casts it.  It's obviously less powerful than Feather Fall, which is a 1st level spell.  OK.  Immature, but so was the PC in question.  Sounds fun.  Go for it.

A level passes...all is well... they are now 8th or 9th (all in the party).

Then....


ARRRGGGG!!!

I make heavy use of "readied" actions, as I'm a tactical-type GM.  I don't let spellcasters get away with casting spells vs. intelligent opponents without them trying to stop it (if possible).  Grapples, readied actions, etc. are common.

So, one merry combat, Player X sees two archers aiming at him.  They have not shot; they seem to be "readying" their shot.  So Player X says --

You guessed it --

"I cast my finger cantrip."

"Ok," says I, "you give them an illusionary finger."
"So -- " says he, smiling, and I'm not sure I like it when he smiles, "do their readied actions go off, if they have any?"

KLONK.

Of course they WERE readying arrow shots.  One of them hit.  They readied action was the typical "spell interrupt" action.  As it turns out the finger cantrip was interrupted and failed.  So cares. Player X then went ahead and cast his normal spell perfectly safe from attack.

!!

He's done this on many occasions, just to be sure no readied actions are out there (when contronted by enemies who have not yet attacked).  Sometimes he even delays until the end of the round to see who hasn't attacked; if there is anyone left, he does this trick.  If there is not, he's safe.

I've stripped away the cantrip in irritation, and he's taken to using "Feather Fall" out of turn to have the same effect.  Any "readied spellcaster interrupt" actions are triggered by the "Feather Fall" spell and does nothing to hinder his other casting.

He says he's playing an Int=20 Wizard; it's just common sense.

I'm pulling my hair out.

What should I do?  Just let him have his fun, and instead grapple him to death? 

Arrrgh.


----------



## Lasher Dragon (Jan 28, 2005)

Not sure, but I don't see how - even with featherfall being a free action - the player can cast 2 spells in one round.


----------



## drunkmoogle (Jan 28, 2005)

Heh... cute idea.
/Adds to my book of tricks

Characters always have the right to retain their readied actions if they wish. If the same situation comes up before their turn, they can take their action.

An NPC who has studied the tactics of the party or has fallen for this once (fool me once...) will likely not fall for it. Nor will anyone who Identifies the spell.


----------



## MerakSpielman (Jan 28, 2005)

Actually I think that's pretty clever on his part.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 28, 2005)

Of course, if you want to ready against a PC casting "A spell other than that damn finger thing," you'll need Spellcraft ranks to determine when the player *is* casting some other spell.

Most NPC fighter-types aren't going to have too many ranks in Spellcraft, methinks.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 28, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> I've stripped away the cantrip in irritation, and he's taken to using "Feather Fall" out of turn to have the same effect.  Any "readied spellcaster interrupt" actions are triggered by the "Feather Fall" spell and does nothing to hinder his other casting.





from the SRD: Feather fall works only upon free-falling objects. It does not affect a sword blow or a charging or flying creature.

in this regard something has to be targeted and falling for him to use his free action.


although, i like the cantrip idea. i would allow it. it is what an int 20 guy should be able to do.


----------



## Targos (Jan 28, 2005)

Honestly, I think his tactic is legit. However, it sounds like it's getting abused. As far as the cantrip goes I probably would have made the casting time a standard action, but it's a moot point since he has feather fall. Take note that feather fall counts towards the limit of one quickened spell per round. He can cast two spells a round if one is quickened or otherwise a free action like feather fall. A quickened spell doesn't provoke AOO so he tactic fails in that situation, but the ready actions still go off. I'd recommend a change in tactics. You say your intelligent NPCs/monsters make every effort to disrupt spell casters. If they have ranks in spell craft base the readied action off of what spell he casts. (e.i. Ready to attack when he casts an offensive spell.) If they don't have spellcraft, have them coordinate when they realize he can cast two spells at a time. Archer 1 readies for the 1st spell and Archer 2 readies for the second spell. There are times in my games when my players discover legitimate loopholes in the game mechanics. A quick house rule comes into play sometimes. The other possibility is have the villians use the same tactic. What goes around comes around.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 28, 2005)

Lasher Dragon said:
			
		

> Not sure, but I don't see how - even with featherfall being a free action - the player can cast 2 spells in one round.




This is incorrect.

Quickened spells (and hence Feather Fall by definition) can be cast in addition to a normal spell in a round.


The way to get around this problem, however, is to rule that Quickened spells cannot be stopped by a ready action. They are too quick.

In the example of Feather Fall, it is the utterance of a single word. I don't care how fast someone is, they are not going to be able to shoot an arrow before a word is spoken and the game should not allow for it.

Plus, it is so fast that the readying character will often not think that it is even spellcasting and hence, it could be ruled that without a Listen check (or some such), he doesn't mistake it for conversation or total nonsense (which would not trigger the readied action).

Course, this would be a house rule. But, it is a very reasonable house rule.


Without a house rule like this, this Screw U spell isn't even needed. A caster could pretend to cast as a move or free action, get hit by an arrow, and then cast anyway.

The way to stop these type of metagaming actions is to prevent them from occurring in the game mechanics of your house rules.


----------



## Lasher Dragon (Jan 28, 2005)

How does the "spell interruption" action work?


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 28, 2005)

Lasher Dragon said:
			
		

> Not sure, but I don't see how - even with featherfall being a free action - the player can cast 2 spells in one round.




Yeah, this was my question as well.  Can you cast a free action spell in the same round as a standard action spell, or is there a rule about 1 spell per round period, contained in all that new "swift action" stuff?

In addition, since you DO have to target feather fall on a falling object...what is he targeting it on?  A rock he drops?  If so, picking up the rock and dropping it is, itself, an action.


----------



## AuraSeer (Jan 28, 2005)

It is common sense, especially with a DM who loves readying. It's a head fake;he's throwing away one weak spell slot to avoid a Concentration check on his important spell. The downside is that he's inviting people to shoot him, which tends to be a bad idea when you only have a d4 hit die.

Note that this only works against enemies who lack Spellcraft. If it's bothering you that much, start sending him against other spellcasters, and have them ready to interrupt only significant spells. When he starts casting they just need a DC 16 Spellcraft check to identify the _featherfall_ spell, and ignore it. Then when he begins the second spell, a _fireball_ lands on his head.

Even without Spellcraft, NPCs have knowledge of the gameworld; they know that some spellcasters can throw more than one spell per round. Have most of the archers ready to interrupt the first spell, but a few stay ready to interrupt the second. (This should especially be done by any repeat enemies, who have seen him use the tactic before.)


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 28, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> although, i like the cantrip idea. i would allow it. it is what an int 20 guy should be able to do.




I totally disagree.

This is total metagaming. It has nothing to do with playing a smart PC.

In another game system like GURP or Rolemaster, this tactic wouldn't work. If it wouldn't work in another game system, it is trying to find a loop hole in the rules of the current game system and hence, metagaming.


Let me give you an example that occurred in my game a few years back.

A PC dropped unconscious next to a Giant and next to the party Druid. The Druid, fearing that the PC might be close to dead, decided to heal him, but didn't want to risk losing the spell from an Attack of Opportunity from the Giant.

So, the player declared that the Druid would move and cast a spell. He moved away 5 feet, the Giant did an AoO against him and hit him, and then he moved back 5 feet and tried to heal the fallen PC.

This is total metagaming. Nobody opens themselve up to attack so that they can open themselves up a second time and ensure that a second attack will not occur.

After a bit of an argument with the player that he couldn't do this, I said fine, you did that. Now, the Giant attacks you again while you are casting.

"How did he do that?" exclaimed the player.

"He has Combat Reflexes." I said.

PS. This is not actually how I resolved it, I forget how it got resolved. But, this makes for a better story.   


The point is that if someone is going to draw an AoO or a readied action in order to make themselves perfectly safe to cast their spell which is total metagaming and abuse, I as DM might allow it once, but it would not become a tactical staple of the game.

You want protection against readied archers, move behind a rock or a fellow PC for cover.


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 28, 2005)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Yeah, this was my question as well.  Can you cast a free action spell in the same round as a standard action spell, or is there a rule about 1 spell per round period, contained in all that new "swift action" stuff?




Sure you can...there's no rule that says "only one spell per round."

It's all a matter of how many actions you can take in a round.  You get one swift action during your turn, and one standard action.  So, you *can* cast two spells in a round, if one has a casting time of "swift action".  (Feather Fall is now an "immediate action", which works just like a swift action except that you can do it when it isn't your turn.  Also, it then takes up your swift action for the following turn.)


----------



## Thaniel (Jan 28, 2005)

Why does he do this? Even if the readied action is to disrupt the spell, to disrupt a spell they have to target the caster. It's not as if the arrow doesn't do any damage to the caster. I don't understand why a wizard would gladly accept any number of readied attacks all at once, even if it did give him free reign for his next action. Also, if his HP are high enough that he doesn't care about those hits, then he's likely high enough level so that his Concentration checks are good enough to not be distracted anyways.


----------



## drunkmoogle (Jan 28, 2005)

> Of course, if you want to ready against a PC casting "A spell other than that damn finger thing," you'll need Spellcraft ranks to determine when the player *is* casting some other spell.
> 
> Most NPC fighter-types aren't going to have too many ranks in Spellcraft, methinks.



I ready an action to disrupt a caster when he flaps his arms like a chicken. (Read: Somatic Components)
I ready an action to disrupt a caster when he reaches into his bag of mold. (Read: Material Components)

I wouldn't think you'd need Spellcraft ranks to understand the concept of spell components.A smart player will eventually figure it out. Until then, keep him guessing.


----------



## drnuncheon (Jan 28, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This is total metagaming. It has nothing to do with playing a smart PC.




How is it metagaming?  It might be annoying, but it's not metagaming - at least, not how I've heard the term used.

In character, the situation goes like this:  the archer aims at the mage, ready to let fly if he sees him casting a spell.

The mage, knowing that he's going to get shot at when he casts, casts a minor spell to get the archers to fire, and then casts his main spell before they have a chance to reload and shoot at him again.

I would go so far to say that a game system that _can't_ handle such a bluff or a fake-out is the one that is flawed.

J


----------



## Lasher Dragon (Jan 28, 2005)

My issue with this is that I don't see how he gains any advantage. He takes damage in a round he was going to cast in, he should have to make a concentration check for BOTH spells. Actually, since featherfall is so fast, I might even rule that he gets featherfall off just fine, gets shot, and has to make a concentration check for whatever else he planned on casting that round.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 28, 2005)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> How is it metagaming?  It might be annoying, but it's not metagaming - at least, not how I've heard the term used.
> 
> In character, the situation goes like this:  the archer aims at the mage, ready to let fly if he sees him casting a spell.
> 
> ...




It is metagaming because it is the avoidance of one game rule by the use of another unrelated game rule.


So, you think it is ok for ALL spellcasters to say:

"I use my move action to wave my arms as if casting a spell, just to be sure there are no archers out there. I then use a standard action to cast the spell."

For a readied archer, does he shoot on the move action (which emulates spell casting), or on the standard action (which is the spell casting).


Taking it one step further, the ONLY reason this tactic works is because the rule does NOT say "If you get hit at all during a round, any spell casting you attempt requires a concentration check.".

If that were the rule, then this "bluff action" as you call it wouldn't work either.

The only reason it works is because that is how the rules are written (hence metagaming, doing an action that takes advantage of the rules as opposed to doing a reasonable roleplaying action). It is not reasonable to take damage in order to safely get a spell off. Would you in the real world take a knife wound to the chest, just in order pull out your own knife. No. You would back away to pull out a knife and do it at a point in time where you wouldn't get wounded attempting it. Just like to ensure a spell goes off, you duck behind cover. You don't play games with how the readied action works.

If it were a reasonable roleplaying action to create a Screw U spell, everyone would have been doing it for years and it would be part of the game already. Instead, the player found a loophole in the rules and created a spell to take advantage of it.

That is metagaming.


----------



## Altamont Ravenard (Jan 28, 2005)

I think the rules support the fact that you cannot ready an action against a Quickened Spell.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Concentration*
> DC: 10 + damage dealt
> Distraction: Damaged during the action.²
> Footnote:
> ²Such as during the casting of a spell with a casting time of 1 round or more, or the execution of an activity that takes more than a single full-round action (such as Disable Device). Also, *damage stemming from* an attack of opportunity or *readied attack made in response to the spell being cast (for spells with a casting time of 1 action)* or the action being taken (for activities requiring no more than a full-round action).




You can be distracted during an action that takes 1 round or more. You can be distracted during an action that takes, well, an action to complete. You cannot be distracted during an action that takes a free action / a swift action / an immediate action.

AR


----------



## diaglo (Jan 28, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> "I use my move action to wave my arms as if casting a spell, just to be sure there are no archers out there. I then use a standard action to cast the spell."





i'd even go so far as to allow him to speak as a free action in say... draconic if he knew that language or some other language if he didn't.

he is giving up his move action. and he is getting shot if there are archers.

the strategy is sound. if not foolish.
edit: in real world terms it is like saying.. hey look at me. i'm the threat.

spellcasters would know on an appropriate spellcraft check it was a bluff.

heck, make him roll a bluff/feint check. it is the same


----------



## billd91 (Jan 28, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It is metagaming because it is the avoidance of one game rule by the use of another unrelated game rule.
> 
> 
> So, you think it is ok for ALL spellcasters to say:
> ...




I don't think it's metagaming at all. The character isn't using his move action to try to bluff out an attack and thus protect his standard action. He's actually casting a spell that happens to use a different kind of action, and in many cases, losing that spell. That seems pretty fair to me and not that unlike a pump fake in football or, even better, lobbing one ball in dodgeball and following up with a zinger on the target as he starts to dodge the lob.

I don't see this as being much different from a fighter using a feint action (particularly if he has the feat to allow it on a move action). He's just using a different action type allowed to certain spells to do it. I'd let him do it. He'll have to keep his cantrips all tied up to do it, he'll draw plenty of attacks, and it won't protect him from AoO if he still tries to cast while threatened for his standard action.
Kudos to that player for his cleverness.


----------



## RuminDange (Jan 28, 2005)

This is no more meta-gaming than you as the enemy archers readying attacks against spell casters and aiming at him.  Is he the only unarmored PC?  If so, then maybe a good disguise self spell to look like he is wearing armor is a good idea, so there is no reason for the enemies to target him as a spell caster in the first place.
First off, if his character has an Intelligence of 20, this makes good sense.  He’s got a super genius character in a world where tactics and planning are used extensively. He has come up with an idea to help cover his good spells in battle by accepting a few hits from casting a minor spell.  Bad idea on taking any hits but still better than wasting your good spells on a possible concentration check going bad.

You also approved the spell research, you let him have the spell and then you took it away because it disrupts your readied actions.  Frankly doing that would have been enough for me to walk and find a new game if that is the only reason to remove the spell.  It sounds like you are doing everything to disrupt the character’s abilities and he came up with a way to counter that.  You should reward not punish.  
Do you ready actions against fighters moving to attack or other characters doing their standard action or ability? If not than the constant targeting spell casters with readied action could be seen as unfair or prejudice against the player or spell casting characters.

If the idea of disrupting your readied actions by taking a chance at getting hit for casting a swift spell to draw their fire doesn’t work, what are you going to do when he takes Leadership and gets himself a Monk cohort to stand by and draw the fire by acting like a spell caster since he is also unarmored and no one without spellcraft would or should know the difference.  That would be something I would do playing a highly intelligent wizard getting shot at everything I go to cast a spell.

The player’s idea of the actual spell may have been immature, but your reaction to the countering of NPC readied actions is far more immature.

No offense meant, but sometimes it might be best to step back and look at the game from other angles to make sure you as the DM are being fair and letting the players have fun and use their character's abilities, and let them counter you once an while, let it be a challenge to come up with new tactic to challenge them with.

RD


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 28, 2005)

Lasher Dragon said:
			
		

> My issue with this is that I don't see how he gains any advantage.




The advantage he gains is that he gets his spell off uninterrupted. He never loses the spell.

The archers gave up their attacks on him in order to perform ready actions (i.e. they sacrificed something). He then turns around and says "No, no, no, you cannot ready on me. I will force you to use up your arrow shots first, then I will cast my spell safely.".

If there were no readied action in the game, it would go:

Archer 1 attacks, archer 2 attacks, wizard casts and the wizard may or may not take damage before casting his spell.


With both archers readying, the sequence should go (because they gave up their actions in order to possible set it up):

Archer 1 readies, archer 2 readies, wizard casts and may get hit twice and may have his spell disrupted

or

Archer 1 readies, archer 2 readies, wizard does something else and archers lose their attacks


There should be no way in the game to preempt the archers readying actions AND still get a 100% chance of getting the spell off safely. The entire intent of the ready action in the game is for the Wizard to take a chance if he wants to cast his spell when archers are aiming at him. This tactic bypasses the normal possibilities and gives the Wizard a 100% chance of getting the spell off. The readying of the archers is irrelevant if this tactic is possible.


That is the advantage the Wizard gains. And, it is sometimes a huge advantage to ensure that a given spell goes off. What is 12 points of damage from the archers (if they both manage to hit) compared with 30 points of damage each (or 15 if saves made) if the Wizard is 100% guaranteed to cast a Fireball against 6 archers?


----------



## Zephyrus (Jan 28, 2005)

If he starts to get that agrivating.. hit them with things that cause continuous damage or have a chance to disrupt spellcasting in later rounds as well... Beam the guy with a Thunderstone and blind or deafen him or shoot him with alchemist fire or alchemy arrows. Lets see him cast a spell while he's on fire!! These are things that enemies can use on anyone to great effect. the Thunderstone being primarly for caster's but the fire great for everyone. have a wizard or rogue with UMD Smack em with a Hidious Laughter spell or grease the area. Have him get his priorities straight... and just for kicks... throw a pit trap here and their  at em or have a spell that creates a pit trap under a character... feather fall.. then figure out a way out of the hole! of course he cant target anyone except anyone that is above the hole!

Alchemist Fire, Thunderstones, Smoke Sticks, etc... dont have to be a caster to use em. I'm sure theirs an Itching powder or similar 'distracting' thing out their... I think their's a spell called  Buzzing Bee which interfear's with a caster's ability to cast spells.  And Complete Adventurer has a number of wonderful Mage-Slayer stuff.

Edit: Ohyah.. and dont forget Whisper Gnome's and Silencing Strike (expecially with Improved Feint to make sure you get your sneek attack)


----------



## Doctor Shaft (Jan 28, 2005)

Definitely meta-gaming.  

The first time is funny and clever. I would probably smile and say "Okay, your trick worked. You faked out the archers since your INT: 20 character guessed there common tactics. But it only worked because it was weird and clever on your part."

However, from a roleplay perspective, it makes no sense. Since when did wizard's come with the mental discipline to stand in front of a firing squad and provoke their attacks with a weak spell... and then within the same two seconds have the mental resolve to cast another spell.

Maybe once because it's cinematic and cool and adds to a story. But two times, three times, four times. That's just a player trying to beat the system.

It's not so much a tactic the follows the rules as it is one that exploits them. It really makes no sense that you could cast an instantaneous spell like the finger, or featherfall, and then in the same two seconds, which is about the time these arrows are being flung at you, you somehow are now free of concentration checks.

I'd rule that once he's attacked, all spells done that round, not just the one arrows attempt to interupt, get interupted. After all... that's what the archers are trying to do. Interupt the spell caster. By that interpretation of the rules, he can't be casting spells freely in the same round that arrows are being flung at him, regardless of if he draws their fire with a wave of his hand or whatever else.

Imagine if you read this in one of the Forgotten Realms Books:
_The great and powerful Elminster stood before his line of foes.  He know that the demons were readying themselves... they would not attack until he summoned his powerful searing light upon them. And then... they would attempt to stop him with their dark powers.  But... Elminster had a clever plan.  He would trick them first with a stupid spell... and then cast a bigger spell one second later... right in the middle of three dark fireballs that just leapt from the demons' mouths... as if now he was less capable of being distracted than before..._


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 28, 2005)

drunkmoogle said:
			
		

> I ready an action to disrupt a caster when he flaps his arms like a chicken. (Read: Somatic Components)




Of course, the somatic component for this particular wizard's Fireball spell is actually rolling the sulphur and guano together (can be done in advance), using it to mark a quick arcane rune in the air, and then pointing at the place he'd like the fireball to explode, so the archers don't get to shoot.  They're readying for an action that never occurs.



> I ready an action to disrupt a caster when he reaches into his bag of mold. (Read: Material Components)




Unfortunately for the archers, this particular wizard keeps his Fireball components in small glass vials in a bandolier.  So they don't get to shoot, either.



> I wouldn't think you'd need Spellcraft ranks to understand the concept of spell components.A smart player will eventually figure it out. Until then, keep him guessing.




This doesn't work, I don't think, because the game rules do not specify exactly what the Verbal, Somatic, or Material components are - merely that the spell has them.  Moreover, recognizing a spell as it is cast *requires* use of the Spellcraft feat, meaning that even if you have the spell currently memorized, you can't recognize your opponent casting the same spell.

This leads me to believe that one wizard's Fireball isn't identical to another's - sure, they both do Fire damage, but the way in which the spell is cast differs - sometimes wildly.

So, unless your *archers* have some training in recognizing spells (Spellcraft skill) or have a lot of intelligence about this particular wizard (i.e., lots of scouting), then what you're doing is setting up a situation in which the NPCs get to act the way they do because the DM says so, not because of any in-character logic.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 28, 2005)

archer fires and then retreats if he didn't take down the wizard.

or ducks behind cover.

or just moves.

the archer can still act.

he has just moved his position in the init order by readying.


----------



## Lasher Dragon (Jan 28, 2005)

LMAO Doc... my point exactly


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 28, 2005)

Altamont Ravenard said:
			
		

> I think the rules support the fact that you cannot ready an action against a Quickened Spell.
> 
> 
> You can be distracted during an action that takes 1 round or more. You can be distracted during an action that takes, well, an action to complete. You cannot be distracted during an action that takes a free action / a swift action / an immediate action.




Thanks for posting that.

I could have sworn it was a rule, but when I tried to find it in the SRD, I couldn't.

That's good for the original poster. The rules prevent the readied arrows from firing when the spell caster casts the Screw U spell, and they then fire when he casts his real spell.

Kudos.


----------



## Doctor Shaft (Jan 28, 2005)

Admitedly, the DM using this tactic continuously may be metagaming in itself as well, since they conceivably would not be well-versed in magic spells or wizards.

However...

In certain cases, it would still make sense. If the attackers knew they were chasing after a party with a known wizard, it is entirely plausible that you could ready those archers to interrupt said spell. I doesn't matter that me, Bob the Barbarian, doesn't understand magic gestures. I think I'd be able to make a reasonable guess, assuming I had an int of 10 or 12, that the guy wearing the robes, holding a staff, or maybe nothing at all, doesn't carry a shield... and oddly enough, when he sees us doesn't take cover.... I think I'd make a good guess that there be my wizard when he stands there, concentrating in the middle of combat while Jake the Fighter and Jack the Ranger are fiddling with weapons instead.


----------



## drnuncheon (Jan 28, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So, you think it is ok for ALL spellcasters to say:
> 
> "I use my move action to wave my arms as if casting a spell, just to be sure there are no archers out there. I then use a standard action to cast the spell."




It would be allowable for them to attempt a Bluff check to get that effect.  This player doesn't need to Bluff, though - he really is casting a spell.  I'd allow the Bluff to be opposed by either Sense Motive or Spellcraft.




> Taking it one step further, the ONLY reason this tactic works is because the rule does NOT say "If you get hit at all during a round, any spell casting you attempt requires a concentration check."
> 
> If that were the rule, then this "bluff action" as you call it wouldn't work either.




The ONLY reason you have to make a concentration check is because the rules say so, too.  Clearly the "reasonable roleplaying action" is to put arrows into the mage as quickly as possible so he dies before he can cast.  So the archers are metagaming (by your standards) because they're waiting to try to force a concentration check rather than just shooting the guy.

J


----------



## RuminDange (Jan 28, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Thanks for posting that.
> 
> I could have sworn it was a rule, but when I tried to find it in the SRD, I couldn't.
> 
> ...




Yes but the rules also require if my memory is correct that the archer make a spellcraft skill check to determine someone is casting spell.  So by seeing a spell effect, they know a spell is cast do they fire now or wait until they determine a spell is in the process of being cast?  It could be the little ball of fire streaking thier way for the fireball or a floating finger, unless they have spellcraft ranks they have no idea a spell is being cast, what the spell is or what it does.  But they can tell when a spell has been cast just not what. How then do they ready action against a spellcaster in the first place?
If the DM can exploit the rules to use readied actions with the NPC's knowing for sure they are firing when someone is casting a spell, then why not let the player draw thier fire with a spell effect so he can cover his good spell.    Still sounds like a clever idea for a high intelligent wizard to do in a world where everyone can detect a spell being cast without skill spellcraft.

RD


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 28, 2005)

Altamont Ravenard said:
			
		

> I think the rules support the fact that you cannot ready an action against a Quickened Spell.




Would you allow the following Readied action?

"If he speaks, I'll shoot him."


----------



## Evilhalfling (Jan 28, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Without a house rule like this, this Screw U spell isn't even needed. A caster could pretend to cast as a move or free action, get hit by an arrow, and then cast anyway.




Yoink  
I think this is just lovely. 
 I enjoy clever tactics and this goes into the lexicon, for both PC and NPC's 
your NPC archers may just have to give up on the tactic of holding for spellcasters.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Jan 28, 2005)

Hm.  Um, I would disagree with the metagaming claim.  D&D combat is an abstraction of what is actually going on.  People don't actually just stand around in combat, waiting for their turn.  The player is stating that his character is doing something in the context of that abstraction.  There isn't anything terribly unbelievable about provoking the bad guy to let loose an arrow, then doing something (like dashing to another piece of cover) while he is reloading.

However, I definitely agree that quickened spells don't trigger readied actions, because they don't trigger AoO.  See p.144 of the Player's Handbook.  You have to actually notice that something is going on to respond to it.

One thing that I would allow would be another character pretending to cast a spell, as long as they won an opposed bluff check.  The attempt would count as their attack action, and it would let a beefier character draw the readied attacks away from the caster.  Under 3E, even a character in plate armor with a broadsword could be a cleric.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Jan 28, 2005)

Clever or not, it's most definitely metagaming. If you were a real wizard being threatened by potential enemy fire, what difference would it make to you if you were shot immediately before or during spellcasting? Either way you're still being shot, and that would be of paramount concern. The fact that the rules distinguish between casting during and immediately before is just that - the rules; something that a character would have absolutely no conception of. What's the wizard thinking, "Oh, I can just cast my really quick _feather fall_ spell to provoke their attack and then they won't be able to shoot me when I cast the spell I really want." How would he know that? That's metagaming.

It's a clever use of a loophole in the rules, nothing more and nothing less. Considering that it basically nullifies readied actions to counter spells as a tactic for the lowly cost of a 1st-lvl spell, I'd disallow it.


----------



## Altamont Ravenard (Jan 28, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Would you allow the following Readied action?
> 
> "If he speaks, I'll shoot him."



 Of course, but the arrow would hit the speaking character AFTER that he had spoken, unless the ready action had been: "I shoot him if he opens his mouth".

AR


----------



## Altamont Ravenard (Jan 28, 2005)

Isn't using a skill usually a standard action? So a wizard couldn't pretend to cast a spell convincingly (ie, Bluff check) AND cast a real spell (ie, cast a spell) during the same round...

AR


----------



## Pbartender (Jan 28, 2005)

First of all, the player is simply coming up with an annoyingly over-used tactic to counteract your annoying over-used tactic.  That's fair game, I think.

That aside...



			
				Zephyrus said:
			
		

> If he starts to get that agrivating.. hit them with things that cause continuous damage or have a chance to disrupt spellcasting in later rounds as well... Beam the guy with a Thunderstone and blind or deafen him or shoot him with alchemist fire or alchemy arrows. Lets see him cast a spell while he's on fire!! These are things that enemies can use on anyone to great effect. the Thunderstone being primarly for caster's but the fire great for everyone. have a wizard or rogue with UMD Smack em with a Hidious Laughter spell or grease the area. Have him get his priorities straight... and just for kicks... throw a pit trap here and their  at em or have a spell that creates a pit trap under a character... feather fall.. then figure out a way out of the hole! of course he cant target anyone except anyone that is above the hole!
> 
> Alchemist Fire, Thunderstones, Smoke Sticks, etc... dont have to be a caster to use em. I'm sure theirs an Itching powder or similar 'distracting' thing out their... I think their's a spell called  Buzzing Bee which interfear's with a caster's ability to cast spells.  And Complete Adventurer has a number of wonderful Mage-Slayer stuff.
> 
> Edit: Ohyah.. and dont forget Whisper Gnome's and Silencing Strike (expecially with Improved Feint to make sure you get your sneek attack)




I think Zephyrus has the right idea here.  Stop readying actions, and start using continual distractions.  Hit him with Melf's Acid Arrows, Creeping Cold spells, tag him with an Entangle, drop a net on him, light him on fire, stick him in the middle of a blizzard, or on board the deck of a pitching ship.

Do it once or twice to prove that his tactic won't work anymore.  Once your player gets the idea, lay off for a bit.  You don't need to be disrupting his spells every combat any more than he needs to to screwing up your readied actions.  Find a few new and innovative tricks to toss at them.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 28, 2005)

Altamont Ravenard said:
			
		

> Of course, but the arrow would hit the speaking character AFTER that he had spoken, unless the ready action had been: "I shoot him if he opens his mouth".




So, you *can* ready an action against a free action.  That invalidates your earlier assessment that you couldn't ready an action against a spell cast as a free action.

So, per the rules for Concentration that you were nice enough to quote, the readied actions go off, the caster gets hit, but, by the same rules:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> In general, if an action wouldn’t normally provoke an attack of opportunity, you need not make a Concentration check to avoid being distracted.




So he doesn't need to make the Concentration check to lose his Quickened / "No, YOUR Mother!" spell, and since the archers don't have any arrows ready any more, he can proceed to cast his Fireball without getting hit in the arm while reaching for his guano-and-sulphur vials.

Again, this is still an excellent, excellent tactic (especially if he's got some protection against normal missiles active).

Go PC!


----------



## satori01 (Jan 28, 2005)

I don't find what the player is doing as metagaming at all.  As a DM if I find a player is using the same combo of actions over and over again, I place intelligent oponents that try to counter them ala fire resistant creatures against a pyro wizard.

I think it perfectly reasonable for an intelligent adventurer to realize "hmm I seem to get attacked by a lot monsters just waiting for me to cast a spell, I better come up with something to counter that."

I would reccomend  changing your tactics a bit.  All DMs can get a bit stale in how we use our creatures, if a simple and creative tactic like this is freaking you out, dont nerf the player, change your tactics.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 28, 2005)

Altamont Ravenard said:
			
		

> Isn't using a skill usually a standard action? So a wizard couldn't pretend to cast a spell convincingly (ie, Bluff check) AND cast a real spell (ie, cast a spell) during the same round...
> 
> AR




in this case you are correct. the feint... is a standard action per the bluff skill.

but some casters will take the improved feint.. which makes the feint a move action.

edit: of course, you can't break up your actions tho.... in the 6 seconds.

you can't feint... wait for the arrows ... and then cast... so this is where it fails.


----------



## johnsemlak (Jan 28, 2005)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> Clever or not, it's most definitely metagaming. If you were a real wizard being threatened by potential enemy fire, what difference would it make to you if you were shot immediately before or during spellcasting? Either way you're still being shot, and that would be of paramount concern. The fact that the rules distinguish between casting during and immediately before is just that - the rules; something that a character would have absolutely no conception of. What's the wizard thinking, "Oh, I can just cast my really quick _feather fall_ spell to provoke their attack and then they won't be able to shoot me when I cast the spell I really want." How would he know that? That's metagaming.




In the context of a Fantasy RPG, I don't think the tactics being discussed here are all that unbelievable.  It makes sence that a clever wizard, and one that is used to casting spells in the midst of combat (as opposed to the solitude of a Wizard's Tower) woudl have a few clever tricks to be able to cast spells freely.

Quite simply, this wizard is faking doing one thing, then doing anohter thing.  It's something that happens all the time in combat.


----------



## Someone (Jan 28, 2005)

I´d make archer N in the squad ready the following action: "Shoot the same wizard archer N-1 shot, unless said wizard already lost his spell."

Of course, archer nº 1 readies an action to shoot at the wizard if he casts an spell.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 28, 2005)

In principle, it is a perfectly fair tactic.

If the Wizard in question owned a Rod of Metamagical Quickening we would not be having the conversation because it would be obvious the archers would live in fear of a Quickened Fireball.  The real metagaming is the presumption that simple ignorant archers should be able to stop a wizard of a certain level from casting spells.  These simple archer tactics generally fail against my 11th level Wizard and it does not seem at all odd.  (I have a high enough Concentration to usually suck it up, if, for some reason, I do not have Mirror Image, Protection from Arrows, Stoneskin, Blur, etc.  And I go up against more flaming boulder throwing Fire Giants than run of the mill archers, to boot.)

I would also add it was probably a mistake to allow a Free Action spell as a cantrip.  1st level would be about right.  If he is willing to use a 1st level slot for this tactical advantage, I would call that close enough to balanced.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 28, 2005)

I think that the important aspect of this is not whether it is metagaming or not (which I believe it is), but that the rules do not allow for readying against a swift, free, or immediate action.

So, casters have choices in this situation:

1) Cast away. At 8th/9th level, most casters will make a concentration roll versus most arrows that hit them.

2) Move to cover and then cast away.

3) Take the Improved Feint feat, Bluff as casting a spell in a move action, possibly get hit and then cast away. Note: I think this does work since actions occur within a move action all of the time and do not affect spellcasting (e.g. AoO for moving, but you still get your spell off during the standard action).

4) Put up Protection From Arrows and then cast away.

5) Other standard options.

But, I think the important thing for the original poster here is that this stupid anti-Readying tactic does not work at all according to the rules, so he no longer has to worry about it.


----------



## tylerthehobo (Jan 28, 2005)

*You gotta be kidding me...*

Y'know, the DM is the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't allowed.  If a player abuses ANY rule, they should be prevented from continuing the abuse.  I would essentially censure the player - not yell at them or anything - but just give them a taste of their own medicine.  Say, perhaps claim that they cast the cantrip in a Wild Magic area and it backfires so that the falling arrows hit him TWICE or something...


----------



## AuraSeer (Jan 28, 2005)

tylerthehobo said:
			
		

> Say, perhaps claim that they cast the cantrip in a Wild Magic area and it backfires so that the falling arrows hit him TWICE or something...



Or equivalently, you could say that a giant anvil with "DON'T CAST SPELLS" carved on the side falls out of the sky and lands on his head. That'll work just as well, and will piss off the player in exactly the same way.


----------



## RuminDange (Jan 28, 2005)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> Or equivalently, you could say that a giant anvil with "DON'T CAST SPELLS" carved on the side falls out of the sky and lands on his head. That'll work just as well, and will piss off the player in exactly the same way.



Basically one of the points I was trying to make.  It's a wonder he has anyone playing a spellcaster at all with these constant tactic employeed by NPC's that probably don't know a spell being cast until they are hit by it.

Still say the wizard should get the leadership feat and a Monk Cohort with deflect arrows, have the monk bluff spellcasting since they should be able to tell which one of them is a spellcaster or not while the wizard blasts them.  Or just disguise self to look like he is wearing armor.  Then who they ready the attacks on?

RD


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 28, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I think that the important aspect of this is not whether it is metagaming or not (which I believe it is), but that the rules do not allow for readying against a swift, free, or immediate action.




Not correct.  You can ready an action against any other action - "If he talks, I'll shoot him."

Talking is a free action.

What the rules do *not* allow is, under most circumstances, an attack readied against a Quickened spell / spell with a Swift action casting time forcing a Concentration check.

Subtle, but very important, difference.  See above.


----------



## diaglo (Jan 28, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 3) Take the Improved Feint feat, Bluff as casting a spell in a move action, possibly get hit and then cast away. Note: I think this does work since actions occur within a move action all of the time and do not affect spellcasting (e.g. AoO for moving, but you still get your spell off during the standard action).




this isn't an AoO. this is a readied action. 

edit: after reading the post below.. looks like you are spot on.


----------



## azmodean (Jan 28, 2005)

I have to say good on the player/character.  IMO this a good tactic, though I think the spell itself should be lvl 1.  It seems that, from the footnote in the concentration skill, you cannot be disrupted by a readied action if your action takes less time than 1 action.  However, here is the definition of the ready action:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> READY
> The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun. Readying is a standard action. It does not provoke an attack of opportunity (though the action that you ready might do so).
> 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.
> ...<snip inititave stuff>...
> Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell.” If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Concentration check result)




This says nothing about a quickened action not triggering a readied action.  It looks like if you ready an attack contingent on "target casting a spell", and the target casts a spell as a swift action, then the readied attack triggers, BUT the action is too fast and is not subject to being interrupted.  The target can then proceed to cast another, regular speed spell unmolested.

As has been noted, if the archers have knowledge of the tactic, (have seen it already in the battle, have been told about the mage doing this) they will split up with one group readying to fire at the mage the first time he casts a spell and the other group readying to fire the second time he casts a spell.  If there is only one archer, they will guess either first or second spell each round.  They should also be able to ready contingent on, "if he casts a regular-speed spell".  If they have spellcraft then they can try to determine what the spell is before they take their action. 

On the other hand, I will now be allowing PCs and NPCs to make a bluff check (opposed by either sense motive or spellcraft, whichever has a higher bonus) to convince others that they are casting a spell.  Those with improved feint can do so as a move-equivalent action.

And since I'm already ranting so much, I'd like to note that the existence of alternatives to this tactic in no way influences wether or not the tactic is, in fact, valid.


----------



## tylerthehobo (Jan 28, 2005)

AuraSeer said:
			
		

> Or equivalently, you could say that a giant anvil with "DON'T CAST SPELLS" carved on the side falls out of the sky and lands on his head. That'll work just as well, and will piss off the player in exactly the same way.




Heh heh.  I like that, too...  I was of course being facetious, but I stick by my point - if you have a player who is exploiting a loophole, you find a way to punish what is _very poor roleplaying._  I'm not talking about being a vindictive DM - what I'm suggesting is that this player is throwing off the game balance by pulling a trick that stinks of abuse of the system.  The fact that it's sparked such a debate suggests to me that he is at best working in a gray area.  So, let's scrap the anvil-esque taste of his own medicine routine and suggest the following - Character X becomes so notorious for the use/abuse of this cantrip, that A) A higher level spellcaster decides to show him why cantrips aren't the best weapons in your arsenal, or B) The villains and NPCs hear about this tactic and come equipped for revenge.  

I agree, AuraSeer, I was over the top in my Warner-Bros.-esque arrow trick.  That said, the objection isn't the clever use of spells, it's the abuse of a low-level one that is throwing off game balance.  I stick by my point that this player needs to be shown a lesson in-character.


----------



## RuminDange (Jan 28, 2005)

tylerthehobo said:
			
		

> Heh heh.  I like that, too...  I was of course being facetious, but I stick by my point - if you have a player who is exploiting a loophole, you find a way to punish what is _very poor roleplaying._  I'm not talking about being a vindictive DM - what I'm suggesting is that this player is throwing off the game balance by pulling a trick that stinks of abuse of the system.  The fact that it's sparked such a debate suggests to me that he is at best working in a gray area.  So, let's scrap the anvil-esque taste of his own medicine routine and suggest the following - Character X becomes so notorious for the use/abuse of this cantrip, that A) A higher level spellcaster decides to show him why cantrips aren't the best weapons in your arsenal, or B) The villains and NPCs hear about this tactic and come equipped for revenge.
> 
> I agree, AuraSeer, I was over the top in my Warner-Bros.-esque arrow trick.  That said, the objection isn't the clever use of spells, it's the abuse of a low-level one that is throwing off game balance.  I stick by my point that this player needs to be shown a lesson in-character.



But it is ok for the DM to meta-game the archers always targetting the player with readied actions if he casts a spell and there is nothing he can do to avoid it?  I still say without spellcraft an NPC shouldn't know spell casting from yelling strange words and taking wierd poses etc. to draw thier fire.

RD


----------



## tylerthehobo (Jan 28, 2005)

RuminDange said:
			
		

> But it is ok for the DM to meta-game the archers always targetting the player with readied actions if he casts a spell and there is nothing he can do to avoid it?  I still say without spellcraft an NPC shouldn't know spell casting from yelling strange words and taking wierd poses etc. to draw thier fire.
> 
> RD





Not at all - I'm not saying that dumb cutpurse NPCs should be able to deduce what the PC is up to.  What I'm trying to say is that if in a fantasy world, a character became notorious for _always_ using the same tactic, the NPCs would eventually learn who he is, and know what his tactic is.  Let's say the DM who started this whole thread was lax and let his PC use this tactic well into the higher levels.  If this is the only trick in his deck (despite high-level abilities), he's eventually going to encounter a powerful NPC (who may be dumb as dirt, but powerful) and be well aware of what the character's general tactic is.  Yes, it is metagaming on the part of the DM to set up such an encounter, but I for one feel it is necessary, when you have the PCs overly relying on something.  

I've been gaming for 20-odd years, and it's generally been accepted that if a party becomes too reliant on anything - an item, ability, skill, etc. - you find a way to present a challenge to the PCs that will cause them to...gasp...get creative.   

Don't get me wrong - I see the anti-metagaming argument that you and many others have presented, and I believe it IS valid.  But, this character's one-trick arsenal is obviously ruining the fun of the game (At least for the DM...)


----------



## azmodean (Jan 28, 2005)

tylerthehobo said:
			
		

> the objection isn't the clever use of spells, it's the abuse of a low-level one that is throwing off game balance. I stick by my point that this player needs to be shown a lesson in-character




My objection to your objection is that this seems to be precisely a case of a clever useage of spells.  If a monk wields a spiked chain so he can get AoOs should he be punished for "abusing the system"?  If faced with an enemy who has cast mirror image, should a mage be punished for casting magic missile to take all (or most) of the images down at once instead of sticking with "normal" spells?

It is my contention that characters are somewhat aware of how the world they live in works, and can develop appropriate strategies to take advantage of this.  Nowhere is this more evident than in the turn sequence and initiative-related actions.  The characters know how readying and delaying work, they know which actions provoke AoOs, and spellcasters know that if damaged while casting a spell it might make them screw up and miscast the spell.

How about this suggestion, a wizard could cast a quickened magic missile at the readied archers, forcing _them_ to make a concentration check.

tylerthehobo:  Where are you seeing that the Pc only has this one trick?  It's likely that he has plenty of tricks, but that isn't the subject at hand.  Sure some NPCs are probably going to learn about this tactic, and take actions to disrupt it, but that is not the same as:


			
				tylerthehobo said:
			
		

> I stick by my point that this player needs to be shown a lesson in-character.


----------



## two (Jan 28, 2005)

*Thanks, kinda*

Thanks for all the replies, at least some of them, the helpful ones, I mean.

Background:  Player X's wizard looks like a wizard.  Robes.  No armor.  No obvious weapons in hand.  Maybe a dagger on the belt.  No disguise spells to look like a Paladin or whatever.

In a world where magic is extremely commonplace, a wizard is more dangerous than anything short of a raging barbarian (within charge range).

If you are a fighter with 2 of your buddies, and come across hated enemies in a cave somewhere, and one of the 4 hated enemies is obviously a wizard -- that's top priority.  More scary than the archer type, the cleric type, the fighter type.  One spell (fireball, whatever) can kill you -- period.  Dead.  Done.  It takes the fighter at least 3 rounds to accomplish that (ok 2 or 1 with a critical).

Point is, "readying" an action to disrupt the spellcaster is a no-brainer obvious tactic.  Int=10 gets you there easily.  If you disrupt the spell, you a)  don't die in a blast of fire, b) hurt him, c) maybe kill him.

What's not to like?

On the other hand, plunking a few arrows into the cleric or fighter will probably a)  miss, or b) hit and do some damage, very unlikely to c) kill the heavily armored character.

??

Result?  One of the fighters gets out his bow and readies an interrupt action; the other two fighters advance into melee.  

So yes, in answer to some questions, intelligent (i.e. 10+ int) opponents in my world will very often ready an action to interrupt the spellcaster.  Or try to do other thing like grapple, throw sticky bags of goo, nuke 'em with alchemist fire, etc.

It's not very common that enemies know about the PC's detailed tactics.  That's very rare.  In fact, I'm not sure how that would happen, unless an enemy escaped a battle and blabbed (and had spellcraft and knew what was going on).  Could happen.  But...rare.

In D&D spellcasting is very powerful.  Very powerful.  My main objection is that this tactic allows a PC, from low to high level, to get around readied actions that stop an important spell from going off.

Somebody said well what's the big deal? just grab a metamagic rod of quickening and you can get off spells anyway -- ?? Isn't that a problem with the rod, for goodness sake?  And who wants to spend all that money when this is so much cheaper and easier?  Hello?

I think even a Wizard11 should be worried about getting a spell off when surrounded by archers -- not all of them low-level grunts for goodness sake.  This tactic nullified a high-level archer opponent's ability to dish out 25 points of damage per arrow and stop the spellcaster cold -- or at least have a fighting chance to do so.  It hinders the balance greatly I feel.

I'm certainly not "out to get" the PC.  He's used his tactic to good advantage, probably once every other combat.  I did take away the cantrip, true.  That's my perogative; I didn't forsee how powerful a free action spell could be.  So sue me (sosumi).

I am "out to balance" things somewhat.  I'll take the good suggestions and Idea's I've gleaned so far, and throw out the bad.  Unfortunately, the tactic does seem to be legal... at least according to the latest point/counterpoint.  I think.

[I would respectifully suggest that, by some of the posts written here, that it is likely that other campaigns feature intelligent creatures that don't use "readied" actions nearly enough -- but I can't be sure of this.  It's not "strange" or "unusual" for an intelligent creature to take pains to save its skin.  That seems pretty obvious to me.  It shouldn't be seen as a repetitive or boring tactic.  Is swinging a greatsword, time and time again, boring and repetitive?  NC from me.]

BTW Player X has a good sense of humor about the thing and knows the cantrip he designed was a way to "screw" the system; he took it with good grace when I removed it.  But he does still use Feather Fall without shame.  Though still with a bit of a smile.  In my direction.


----------



## tylerthehobo (Jan 28, 2005)

azmodean said:
			
		

> My objection to your objection is that this seems to be precisely a case of a clever useage of spells.  If a monk wields a spiked chain so he can get AoOs should he be punished for "abusing the system"?  If faced with an enemy who has cast mirror image, should a mage be punished for casting magic missile to take all (or most) of the images down at once instead of sticking with "normal" spells?




In these examples, I agree with you.  But these are clever, standard uses of character abilities.  The monk example is strictly tactical, and the mage example is just an experienced, clever use of his/her abilities.  But, coming up with your own 0-level spell that is obviously throwing off game balance is another matter entirely.  It is not tactical, and since it appears to be used in every encounter, it is not clever after the first few times it's done.  Any DM worth his salt would throw a challenging encounter at the PC after it becomes obvious that this is his crutch.

I'm probably not being clear.  I'll not waste anyone's time with further debate, but I'll close by saying that I believe that the DM should not allow the players to dictate game mechanics.  Being a rules lawyer is one thing. Being a rules exploiter is another.  Don't let your players boss you around.  (And conversely, don't be a meanie who exploits character weaknesses.)

Being that I think I just created the word "exploiter" above, I'm obviously tapped out, and will just concede to the general flow of this thread.  Good luck!


----------



## kenobi65 (Jan 28, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> But he does still use Feather Fall without shame.  Though still with a bit of a smile.  In my direction.




As others have already pointed out, it sounds like he's absolutely misusing Feather Fall.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Targets: One Medium or smaller freefalling object or creature/level, no two of which may be more than 20 ft. apart




Where is his "freefalling object"?  You can't just cast Feather Fall on yourself if you're not in freefall.


----------



## azmodean (Jan 28, 2005)

If it is an obvious tactic to ready an action to stop a spellcaster (and I agree it is) then how is a countermeasure to this tactic screwing the system?  


> This tactic nullified a high-level archer opponent's ability to dish out 25 points of damage per arrow and stop the spellcaster cold



As has been noted, this tactic does not nullify interfering with spellcasting, it just makes it less reliable.  If I were running a NPC and one of their tactics that they rely upon to survive was stopped cold, I'd have them retreat and give some thought to counter-countermeasures.

About the misuse of featherfall, I think I'd allow a free action "hop" right before casting feather fall, though the player would have to come up with the idea first.


----------



## tylerthehobo (Jan 28, 2005)

I'll also add this concession - everybody plays a different game.  I like using minis, battlemats, and tactics, but I generally only use them as an extension of gamplay, not as a replacement of gameplay.  I prefer rules lite - by reviewing some of the thread, it seems that most of the posters were rules heavy.  The distillation of my advice was basically that as a DM one should keep the rules that work and discard the (optional or difficult) rules that don't.  Keep in mind, there are _plenty_ of DMs that don't use AoO because they find it too cumbersome.  Huh, guess maybe I'm in the middle, then...


----------



## two (Jan 28, 2005)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> As others have already pointed out, it sounds like he's absolutely misusing Feather Fall.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is his "freefalling object"?  You can't just cast Feather Fall on yourself if you're not in freefall.




Believe it or not, he dropped a pebble or bat guano.

Serious.  When things looked a little scary.  He would grab a rock from the ground or use a pebble from his spell component bag.  Retrieving components from the bag is a free action; so it dropping something.  

It went like this:

Retrieve a components (free action)
Drop it (free action)
Cast Feather Fall on dropping component (free action)
Get hit or missed by arrows or whatever.
Move and cast spell.

After we went through this a few times I just shrugged and gave up on it.  It seems to be legal and possible to get something airborne whenever your want.

He also considered casting Feather Fall on incoming arrows, for the arrows are released before the spell is finished (readied action, after all), but that's just too absurd.  Arrows are, after all, free-falling.  They are also moving horizontally at a good clip.  But this I nixed.  Just too, too silly, and anyway the target of the spell has to be known as the spell BEGINS to be cast -- not a millisecond after.  Is what I ruled.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 28, 2005)

azmodean said:
			
		

> I have to say good on the player/character.  IMO this a good tactic, though I think the spell itself should be lvl 1.  It seems that, from the footnote in the concentration skill, you cannot be disrupted by a readied action if your action takes less time than 1 action.  However, here is the definition of the ready action:
> 
> 
> This says nothing about a quickened action not triggering a readied action.  It looks like if you ready an attack contingent on "target casting a spell", and the target casts a spell as a swift action, then the readied attack triggers, BUT the action is too fast and is not subject to being interrupted.  The target can then proceed to cast another, regular speed spell unmolested.




Actually, the reason it is not disrupted is not because it is very quick.

"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 does NOT state that the action goes AFTER a swift action, it states it goes before it.
This does NOT state that the action does NOT interrupt the other character's action if the trigger is a swift action.

When combined with the Concentration rule:

"Distraction: Damaged during the action.²
Footnote:
²Such as during the casting of a spell with a casting time of 1 round or more, or the execution of an activity that takes more than a single full-round action (such as Disable Device). Also, damage stemming from an attack of opportunity or readied attack made in response to the spell being cast (for spells with a casting time of 1 action) or the action being taken (for activities requiring no more than a full-round action)."

According to this, you do go before the Quickened spell, you do interrupt that spell, but any damage you do does not force a concentration roll.

When combined with the normal rules, this is a little bogus in that you cannot disrupt a quickened spell with damage. You can interrupt it, but the damage is irrelevant unless you do enough damage to make the character go unconscious, in which case the quickened spell does not happen.



			
				azmodean said:
			
		

> On the other hand, I will now be allowing PCs and NPCs to make a bluff check (opposed by either sense motive or spellcraft, whichever has a higher bonus) to convince others that they are casting a spell.  Those with improved feint can do so as a move-equivalent action.




Course, without Improved Feint, it is typically irrelevant. You can feint and cast a swift spell, but you cannot feint and cast a one action spell (without Improved Feint).


----------



## Altamont Ravenard (Jan 28, 2005)

One quick note: Unless I'm missreading something, the Improved Feint lets you "Feint in Combat", which, under the Bluff skill description, has its own little description:



> Feinting in Combat: You can also use Bluff to mislead an opponent in melee combat (so that it can’t dodge your next attack effectively). To feint, make a Bluff check opposed by your target’s Sense Motive check, but in this case, the target may add its base attack bonus to the roll along with any other applicable modifiers.
> If your Bluff check result exceeds this special Sense Motive check result, your target is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) for the next melee attack you make against it. This attack must be made on or before your next turn.




They way I'm reading it is that, with Improved Feint, you may Feint In Combat as a move action, which, if successful, denies your opponent his Dexterity Modifier. Improved Feint doesn't let you use the Bluff skill as a move action, only the Feint In Combat option of said skill.

AR


----------



## Lasher Dragon (Jan 28, 2005)

Altamont - it also specifies MELEE combat.


----------



## Altamont Ravenard (Jan 28, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> So, you *can* ready an action against a free action.  That invalidates your earlier assessment that you couldn't ready an action against a spell cast as a free action.




No, what I'm saying is you *can* ready an action against what ever the hell you want, but, in the case of a free action, said ready action can't be completed in time to actually disrupt the action that was supposed to initiate the readied action.

Ex.

Archer: "I ready an action to shoot him if he speaks a word"
Wizard: "Abraxas..."
Archer's bow: "p'toing!"
Wizard: "Ungh!"

AR


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 28, 2005)

Altamont Ravenard said:
			
		

> No, what I'm saying is you *can* ready an action against what ever the hell you want, but, in the case of a free action, said ready action can't be completed in time to actually disrupt the action that was supposed to initiate the readied action.
> 
> Ex.
> 
> ...




This is incorrect as per the definition of readied actions. They always interrupt the action. The results of the interruption, however, does not always prevent the action.

Archer: "I ready an action to shoot him if he speaks a word"
Wizard: ""
Archer's bow: "p'toing!"
Wizard: "Ungh!"
Wizard: "Abraxas..."

It does not make logical sense, but that is how the rule reads.


----------



## Epametheus (Jan 28, 2005)

Heh.  "hi!" or whatever should be a first level spell, but that's actually pretty clever.

Second, you rely way to much on readied actions to stop spellcasting; this is probably why the player does this.  Your "25 points per arrow" archer could _easily_ have outright killed the wizard; why was he wasting his time readying actions?

If you're that determined to stop the wizard from casting spells, just put a dedicated grappler in every fight.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 28, 2005)

Altamont Ravenard said:
			
		

> No, what I'm saying is you *can* ready an action against what ever the hell you want, but, in the case of a free action, said ready action can't be completed in time to actually disrupt the action that was supposed to initiate the readied action.




What you said earlier:



			
				AR said:
			
		

> I think the rules support the fact that you cannot ready an action against a Quickened Spell.




So, you've changed your mind.  You *can* ready an action against a Quickened Spell, you just can't disrupt it.

I'll complete your example:

Archer: "I ready an action to shoot him if he speaks a word"
Wizard: "Abraxas..."
Archer's bow: "p'toing!"
Wizard: "Ungh! Fool - you've wasted your only shot!  _Calabraxes mordag!_"
Archer: *dissolves in a puddle of goo*


----------



## myradale (Jan 28, 2005)

*Ok, maybe this will help?*

It MAY seem like metagaming, but let's just replace the "I ready an action to shoot if he casts a spell" with "I ready an action to shoot if he comes through the door"

Now, if you got shot once or twice as you came through a door, I'd think it would be pretty sensible to duck your head out and back quickly to see if anyone shoots at you.  Apparently, every cop or action hero in any movie ever made agrees with me.  Faking the spellcasting is pretty much the same as faking going through the door.  Not metagaming, just good tactics.
I don't even see why he'd need to actually cast a spell.  Unless those archers have at least one rank in spellcraft, there is NO reason why they should be able to differentiate a fkae spell from a real spell.  Heck, even to a practiced spellcaster, I'm make them roll a sense motive or spellcraft check vs the casters bluff check... a 20 INT guy would probably fake movements pretty similar to those of the spell for jus that reason.

He still ends up getting shot though...not the GREATEST tactic i've heard of?


----------



## Paragon (Jan 28, 2005)

my question would be how often does a mage in your game get blasted by archers or melee's with readied actions?  if you get hit 4 times by people waiting for you to cast a spell common sense would say you should try something different.  is it that NPC's are allowed tactis, "i ready to shoot him if he casts a spell"  and pc's are not?
if the character has an ingame reason for doing it, it's not metagaming.  

my 2cents

word


----------



## billd91 (Jan 28, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> <snip>
> Somebody said well what's the big deal? just grab a metamagic rod of quickening and you can get off spells anyway -- ?? Isn't that a problem with the rod, for goodness sake?  And who wants to spend all that money when this is so much cheaper and easier?  Hello?
> 
> I think even a Wizard11 should be worried about getting a spell off when surrounded by archers -- not all of them low-level grunts for goodness sake.  This tactic nullified a high-level archer opponent's ability to dish out 25 points of damage per arrow and stop the spellcaster cold -- or at least have a fighting chance to do so.  It hinders the balance greatly I feel.
> ...




So what's the point of a metamagic rod? So you do the same thing this character is doing with a REAL spell (rather than just a throwaway spell) and still get another spell off later in the round free of readied arrows. This character just came up with a way to do it with his cantrip slots (and now 1st level slots). Again, I can't really see anything wrong with it and I think you are out for unwarranted payback. You might as well drop that NO SPELLCASTING anvil on him if you are going to invalidate his response to you always readying missile weapons. 
I suppose one other tactic he could take to neutralize your archers would be to simply refuse to cast anything. They ready, he says "psyche" and then fires a crossbow instead. Now those archers have egg all over their faces because they not only didn't hit the spellcaster to disrupt him, but they also didn't get to take their regular attack while the caster still got to do something (perhaps even move into cover).

I personally can't see anything wrong with his tactic nor can I see it as any more metagamey than readying an action to fire at the casters. Both tactics are taking advantage of the game knowledge that getting hit right during the act of casting is worse than getting hit even a moment before or after. But, arguably, that IS something a character could know in the game.

Ultimately, the wizard character IS giving up something to use the tactic. He's still provoking their attacks from their held actions and he's still casting a real spell. He's still taking a risk of taking too much damage to actually get the spell off (due to overall damage) and he'll still provoke AoO if threatened when he takes that later standard spell casting action.

I think you should gracefully admit that the player came up with a good tactic to counter your tactic and live with it.


----------



## Altamont Ravenard (Jan 28, 2005)

Yes, Patryn, I'm revising the wording of my position.

Let me recapitulate.

To disrupt a spell, you need to ready an action with the trigger "If he starts casting a spell".

By the footnote on the Concentration skill table, it is my belief that it says that you cannot disrupt a spell that takes less than 1 action to cast.

If you ready an action to disrupt a spell, and said spell takes less than 1 action to cast, then, one of two things:
a) The spell is cast before the action that would interrupt it, which would contradict what's written about the Ready action.
b) The interrupting action isn't, in fact, triggered at all.

If a), then, two things:
a1) The tactic is even BETTER than first thought, since the arrow can't interrupt the free spell and is shot anyway before the second spell is cast
a2) Since the round is supposed to be continuous and not actually divided into actions, the arrow strikes the wizard as he is beginning to cast his 2nd spell, forcing a Concentration check (wacky idea, I know)

If b) then the archer is still readying to disrupt the spellcaster.

Anyways. Going away for the week-end, I'll see how it all turns out when I get back. Have a good one all, and it's been fun working on my (far from adequate) logic skills.

AR


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 28, 2005)

Altamont Ravenard said:
			
		

> Let me recapitulate.




You give in again?  I am t3h win!   



> To disrupt a spell, you need to ready an action with the trigger "If he starts casting a spell".




Specifically, you would "ready an action to attack him if he starts casting a spell."  Agreed so far.



> By the footnote on the Concentration skill table, it is my belief that it says that you cannot disrupt a spell that takes less than 1 action to cast.




Agreed - with the addition of "1 _standard_ action to cast."



> If you ready an action to disrupt a spell, and said spell takes less than 1 action to cast, then, one of two things:
> 
> a) The spell is cast before the action that would interrupt it, which would contradict what's written about the Ready action.
> 
> b) The interrupting action isn't, in fact, triggered at all.




I disagree, because you forgot the third possibility. The enemy in question readied an action to attack when the wizard begins to cast a spell.

When the wizard begins to cast a spell, the enemies get to attack.  Mechanically, the attack is resolved before the spell is resolved.  Cinematically, they happen simultaneously (hence my own and your examples earlier).

That in mind:

C) The interrupting action occurs, but cannot cause the wizard to lose the spell through forcing a Concentration check

They may cause the wizard to lose the spell some other way - outright killing him, silencing him for a spell with V components, blocking line of effect, etc.



> If a), then, two things:
> a1) The tactic is even BETTER than first thought, since the arrow can't interrupt the free spell and is shot anyway before the second spell is cast
> a2) Since the round is supposed to be continuous and not actually divided into actions, the arrow strikes the wizard as he is beginning to cast his 2nd spell, forcing a Concentration check (wacky idea, I know)
> 
> If b) then the archer is still readying to disrupt the spellcaster.




Alternatively, if C:



			
				Me said:
			
		

> Wizard: "Ungh! Fool - you've wasted your only shot! *Calabraxes mordag!*"
> Archer: *dissolves in a puddle of goo*






			
				AR said:
			
		

> Anyways. Going away for the week-end, I'll see how it all turns out when I get back. Have a good one all, and it's been fun working on my (far from adequate) logic skills.




Have a good one!


----------



## Philip (Jan 28, 2005)

Any archer who readies an attack contingent on spellcasting IS metagaming.

Any sane non-metagaming archer knows that a single arrow can kill a human opponent, or at least hurt him a lot and disrupt his ability to concentrate with the arrow sticking in him.

If an archer readies such an attack he must clearly have some notion of hit points, levels etc.


----------



## Fedifensor (Jan 28, 2005)

Okay, how about the following situation:

DM:  "The archer appears to be covering you with his bow, ready to shoot if you cast."

Player:  "I use my Bluff skill as part of a move action to start speaking nonsense words and wave my hand around like I'm casting." (Roll)  "My Bluff check is a 20."

DM:  "He shoots you - take 8 damage."

Player:  "Okay, *now* I cast my _fireball_ spell..."

With this tactic, you don't even waste a cantrip slot.  Sure, Bluff is cross-class for Wizards...but not for Sorcerers.


Of course, a good counter-tactic for the DM to use on occasion are a few low-level wizards with a maxed-out Spellcraft.  They make the roll, see he isn't casting, and their held action stays held until the character starts casting for real - at which point the _magic missile_ spells hit him.


----------



## RuminDange (Jan 28, 2005)

tylerthehobo said:
			
		

> Not at all - I'm not saying that dumb cutpurse NPCs should be able to deduce what the PC is up to.  What I'm trying to say is that if in a fantasy world, a character became notorious for _always_ using the same tactic, the NPCs would eventually learn who he is, and know what his tactic is.  Let's say the DM who started this whole thread was lax and let his PC use this tactic well into the higher levels.  If this is the only trick in his deck (despite high-level abilities), he's eventually going to encounter a powerful NPC (who may be dumb as dirt, but powerful) and be well aware of what the character's general tactic is.  Yes, it is metagaming on the part of the DM to set up such an encounter, but I for one feel it is necessary, when you have the PCs overly relying on something.
> 
> I've been gaming for 20-odd years, and it's generally been accepted that if a party becomes too reliant on anything - an item, ability, skill, etc. - you find a way to present a challenge to the PCs that will cause them to...gasp...get creative.
> 
> Don't get me wrong - I see the anti-metagaming argument that you and many others have presented, and I believe it IS valid.  But, this character's one-trick arsenal is obviously ruining the fun of the game (At least for the DM...)



I agree with the thought that if they use the same tactic over and over or become overly reliant on anything then yeah they should be forced at some point to get creative or suffer as the world around them adapts to thier style.

I too have been gaming for 20 odd years, and many times have done just that.  But who stops the DM from using the same tactic over and over again the sucks the fun out of the game for the spellcasting player? 

Side note: IMC
I recently sent an character on a quest (epic level Ranger/Sorcerer/Arcane Archer character level overall around 30) for his deity and one of the requirements of the quest was he couldn't take any of his belongings (magical gear etc) with him.  He had to purchase normal equipment.  He was too reliant on his magical toys.  He was allowed to take one other creature with him, but only one.  He choose his cohort and left his familiar behind.  He quickly learned that he didn't need all the other stuff and has handled the quest to this point very well.  
RD


----------



## Herpes Cineplex (Jan 28, 2005)

Doctor Shaft said:
			
		

> I'd rule that once he's attacked, all spells done that round, not just the one arrows attempt to interupt, get interupted. After all... that's what the archers are trying to do. Interupt the spell caster. By that interpretation of the rules, he can't be casting spells freely in the same round that arrows are being flung at him, regardless of if he draws their fire with a wave of his hand or whatever else.



Oh, so you'd eliminate the whole purpose of readied actions to interrupt spellcasting in the first place, huh?  


*BROKEN ARROWS*
_A Cautionary Tale_

At last, the combat is joined!  Al the Archer rolls for initiative and gets a whopping 23.  He takes aim at Wally the Wizard (whose initiative roll was a measly 9).

The rest of his party screams, "NO, AL!  WAIT UNTIL HE STARTS CASTING!"

Al smirks.  "I don't have to," he says.  "Doctor Shaft's given me the ability to hit him whenever I feel like hitting him this round, and the damage I do will interrupt any spell he casts.  Which is good, 'cause I think his pal Frank the Fighter is going to be charging into melee with me on initiative count 18, and that would have totally hosed me if I had to wait until Wally finally goes on initiative count 9 to interrupt the spell.  This way, I can take my shot and move away before Frank does anything, and _still_ keep Wally from getting his spell off!  Thanks, Doctor Shaft!"

Wally the Wizard grits his teeth and shakes his fist at the heavens (a free action).  "Damn that Doctor Shaft and his off-the-cuff rules changes!  I see where the 'SHAFT' part of his name came from now!"




--
another way of saying "i don't think i'd do that if i were you"
ryan


----------



## Kast (Jan 29, 2005)

Perhaps in the best interests of all spellcasters (but especially the PCs), you should rule that Quickened spells (ie those cast as a free action) can't be interrupted by ready actions. They don't provoke AoOs after-all.


----------



## Anax (Jan 29, 2005)

I agree with (what seems like) the majority of the people here: this sounds like smart tactics to me.  A very nice trick, and well within the spirit of the game.

The bad guys, however, have ways to one up this again.  If they see him do it a lot, they can look for something that isn't there.  For example, Feather Fall has no somatic or material components, but most spells do.  As a DM, I probably would have ruled that this prevented this specific trick from working, by the way--guards readying to attack a caster are most likely not going to shoot as soon as somebody opens his mouth.  In any case, though, if this is being done a *lot*, the opposition will eventually wise up and realize it.  And then they'll ready actions to "attack anyone who appears to be making arcane gestures."  Or they'll stop readying and instead unload a full attack's worth of arrows into the guy in the fancy bathrobe.

Of course, this is an interesting argument that a high level non-caster has good reason to invest some skill points in Spellcraft--since that allows such a character to tell if there's actually a thread involved.  You don't even need a terribly large amount to be able to distinguish well.  And any character who has worked on techniques for fighting mages should certainly invest.

Of further note, I would treat this (and all other quickened spells, or reactive spells like Feather Fall) as the XPH "Immediate Action."  That means that the spell counts against the quickened spells for the round--and at higher levels, the tactic will be potentially less useful if the caster has the ability (through feats or equipment) to quicken spells.  I know I'd rather just try to get two fireballs off.  It is perhaps more obvious in the context of psionics, though, since there are significantly more reactive psionic powers than there are reactive spells.  (Whether that's because this is something they wanted to be special to psionics, or because the authors simply hadn't realized how cool it could be, I'm not sure.)

Anyway, interesting tactic.  Thanks for telling about it.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jan 29, 2005)

Well, darn, I didn't realize that playing within the rules automatically made something metagaming. Let's look at a few more examples here:

"I disarm him." It only works because it's how the rules are written. In a different system--like first edition or basic D&D, for instance, it couldn't be done. Even so, it's bizarre to call it metagaming.

For another example:
"I ready an action to disrupt his spell with an arrow." It only works because it's how the rules are written. If there were any such rule in pre-3e editions, I never noticed it. If Rolemaster allowed spells to be disrupted at all, I never noticed it. However, just because the D&D rules allow for such an action doesn't make it metagaming.

So much for the broad assertion "If it works because the rules make it work, it's metagaming."

Now for the qualifier: (as opposed to a reasonable role-playing action). Purposefully drawing attacks IS a reasonable roleplaying action. When I used to compete in kickboxing, I would sometimes attempt to get an opponent to commit to an attack in order to gain an opportunity to do something that would otherwise be risky--not very often, but I would do it. When I was younger and got into fights with my brother, I would sometimes take similar risks.  The calculation worked like this: I suspect that I can dodge the attack or that it won't do enough damage to seriously disadvantage me (ie--it'll usually just be a glancing blow), but I think I can get an advantage out of it that's worth the risk. It sounds to me like that is exactly what the characters in both your game and the original poster's game are doing: risking an injury they judge likely to be non-life threatening in order to gain an advantageous position. In your example as well, you highlight the danger of this: some enemies won't be faked out so easily--they have combat reflexes and will still be able to take advantage of the other risk you're taking.

Others have brought up cop movies, etc. (Which may not be entirely realistic but are certainly a part of the action film genre that D&D is pretty darn close to).

As for metagaming and the screw u spell, the metagaming sounds to be just as much on the part of the DM to me. If there are regularly archers readying actions to disrupt spells, that's a nonstandard environment that invites innovative tactics. If there are always archers readying attacks to disrupt spells, it means that "anti-ready" tactics will always be useful. As the DM, if you want to stop the tactic, there's no better way than to stop readying arrows to attack the pc. (I recommend switching it up with grapple, silence spells, etc).

And, as the player demonstrated by switching to Feather Fall, there are plenty of other spells that will make the trick work. (In fact, in a level or two, quickened spells, or right now, swift action spells (from CA, CV, and MiniHB, etc) would make the "fake" a reasonable attack in and of itself. At that point, foes would have to decide whether to interrupt the "fake" or let it go by and take the risk that, instead of casting another spell, the wizard will pull out a wand and fire it). The metamagic rod of quickening is another very good example for this point. With a metamagic rod of quickening, the PC could do this with a spell that's actually a threat.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The only reason it works is because that is how the rules are written (hence metagaming, doing an action that takes advantage of the rules as opposed to doing a reasonable roleplaying action). It is not reasonable to take damage in order to safely get a spell off. Would you in the real world take a knife wound to the chest, just in order pull out your own knife. No. You would back away to pull out a knife and do it at a point in time where you wouldn't get wounded attempting it. Just like to ensure a spell goes off, you duck behind cover. You don't play games with how the readied action works.
> 
> If it were a reasonable roleplaying action to create a Screw U spell, everyone would have been doing it for years and it would be part of the game already. Instead, the player found a loophole in the rules and created a spell to take advantage of it.
> 
> That is metagaming.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 29, 2005)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Well, darn, I didn't realize that playing within the rules automatically made something metagaming.




If you cannot see the difference between creating a spell for the effect and creating a spell to take advantage of a loophole in the rules, I cannot help you.

Everyone here knows that he did not create the 0th level Screw U spell just to flip off his opponents. And, everyone here knows that most 0th level spells have almost no effect in combat expect in the most extreme circumstances. I applaud the DM for taking it away once he found out how potent of a 0th level spell it was. There is a difference between reasonableness and extremism when it comes to rules lawyering.


----------



## Anax (Jan 29, 2005)

> The only reason it works is because that is how the rules are written (hence metagaming, doing an action that takes advantage of the rules as opposed to doing a reasonable roleplaying action). It is not reasonable to take damage in order to safely get a spell off.




Just a note on this one, which I just noticed in the last reply: of course it is reasonable to take damage in order to safely get a spell off.  Here, we have a situation where there's a high probability somebody is ready to attack you.  If you try to cast the spell without using any tactics at all, then you *will* be shot at, and there is a (let's say) 50% chance that you will lose the spell.  If you apply this tactic, you *will* be shot at (but you were going to be shot at anyway), and there's a 100% chance you'll get your spell off.  (Although smarter tactics on the part of the attackers can reduce that--for example, if there are two attackers, one readies an action to attack the person who attempts to cast a spell first, and the other readies to attack the person who attempts to cast a spell second, etc.)  So the choice is between taking x damage and having a 50% chance to do Y damage and taking X damage and having a 100% chance to do Y damage.  I know which choice I would make.

In fact, it's a similar tradeoff that the archers in this case are making: they could choose to maneuver and attack normally, but instead they have chosen to remain motionless watching for a spell to be cast.  They are quite vulnerable to melee attackers while they're doing this, and there's no guarantee that they'll actually disrupt a spell that's cast at them.  Why do they do this?  Because spells can hit them harder and more quickly than melee attackers generally can--the spellcaster is more dangerous, so they leave themselves open to other attacks in order to take the caster out of action.

To match this up with "stabbed in the chest in order to pull out your own knife", well, that's not exactly a good match for this situation.  First, "stabbed in the chest" is sort of fatal sounding, whereas taking n points of damage is not.  Second, pulling a knife is something you could ordinarily do without having to be attacked first.  A better comparison would be allowing yourself to be wounded in order to exploit an opening in the attacker's defenses.  Sure, it's better *not* to get hit, but if you notice that the attacker's swordplay has a flaw, and you can take a fairly light wound in exchange for decapitating him... well, that's not too bad.  Of course, if you thought that there was only one opponent and there turn out to be more, you'll wish you'd just avoided taking damage.  Same thing applies to the caster: this is a dangerous tactic compared to moving under cover to cast, but depending on the circumstances, it can be a good choice.

And that kind of situational choice is what tactics is all about.

Now, as far as this being metagaming... it is, somewhat.  But not for the reasons that you suggest.  This is metagaming because the player is using the rules of the game in an odd way to achieve a specific effect.  It would be better to introduce a house rule and say "this is the right way to draw fire from enemies prepared to attack a person who is casting spells."  I suspect that everybody would be happier with that, although if you intentionally choose a method that this character won't be able to use at all effectively, he would be justifiably grumpy.  Bluff would probably work, though--since he has a high intelligence, he could probably afford to spend the skill points the next time he has a chance.

My suggestion would be:

BLUFF (CHA)

The following is a new use for the Bluff skill:

Magical Feint (Psionic Feint): When you suspect an enemy may have readied an action to attack spellcasters, you may make a Bluff check as a move action in order to convince the opponent that you are casting a spell.  This allows you to later cast another spell as a standard action, avoiding the distraction of any attacks triggered by your feinted casting attempt.  This special use for Bluff may not be attempted untrained.

Check: You must make Bluff check opposed by the opponents' Spellcraft (or Psicraft) checks.  You make one roll and each opponent that fails to beat the roll is convinced that you are casting a spell.  Your roll takes a -1 penalty per the level of spell you are attempting to feint casting.  (i.e. if you attempt to feint casting Fireball, you take a -5 penalty to your check.)  Opponents who cannot normally make Spellcraft (or Psicraft) checks because they are untrained are convinced by any such attempt.  Opponents who fail their check ascertain that you are casting the spell you attempted to emulate if their Spellcraft check is high enough to identify a spell of that level, or are convinced that you are casting a spell that they could not identify, otherwise.

Action: Performing a Magical Feint (or Psionic Feint) requires a move action.  See Special for special rules on the type of action required.  This action does not provoke acts of opportunity, but instead appears as if the caster made his or her concentration check.

Special: If you have the Improved Feint feat, then you may perform a Magical Feint (or Psionic Feint) as either an immediate action or as a move action.

Try Again: You may make as many Magical Feint (or Psionic Feint) attempts in a round as you wish.  However, each attempt in a single round is at a further -2 penalty.  (Second attempt at -2, third attempt at -4, etc.)

Synergy: If you have five or more ranks in Spellcraft (or Psicraft), you gain a +2 synergy bonus when attempting to make a Magical Feint (or Psionic Feint).
​
(Hmm.  Added some text to account for a few more cases--like, people who make Spellcraft checks should have some idea what spell is being cast, not just that a spell is being cast.  Could use some tightening up, I'm sure.)

This model has a few benefits over the "use an immediate action spell" model:

It provides a way for enemies to avoid being hoodwinked.  (Spellcraft ought to suffice for that in the case of actually using a spell, however.)

If you were already allowing the enemies to make Spellcraft checks, then it provides a way for the caster to improve their ability to feint casting a spell--so this is something that can be specialized in.

It is *not* normally an immediate action, but the already existing Improved Feint feat allows it to be used as an immediate action.  This provides a further level of specialization that allows 1 round casting time spells to be cast efficiently when using the tactic.

It provides a way for non-casters to attempt to take the damage instead of the caster.

A caster can be expected to always be better at feinting casting than a non-caster, since they will gain the synergy bonus from Spellcraft.

A non-caster can be expected to have a decent chance at telling the difference, *if* he has specialized in fighting spellcasters.  If he has not specialized in fighting spellcasters, then he will be at a disadvantage when making such an attempt.  (Which is only reasonable: magical arts take training!)  There is, however, no need to include something like BAB in the check (as for the normal feint in combat), since the impact of a Magical Feint is much less than that of a normal Feint in combat.


Anyway, I suspect that the caster in this specific case would be slightly irritated that he needs to use a move action now to draw fire.  But he would be able to fix that if he chose (using Improved Feint), and even with just a single rank in Bluff, he can convince anyone with no ranks in Spellcraft that a spell is being cast.  Even better, any comrade who has at least one rank in Bluff can draw fire instead, which is wonderful for the caster.  (But the comrade, of course, has used up a move action to do so.)

Some ways to modify this:

It could be made so that this action is normally an immediate action rather than a move action.  I feel this would be too powerful, since non-casters could then do it with no penalty--they don't normally use immediate actions anyway.

The penalty for higher level spells could be removed.  (I added this so that at higher levels it's harder to convince the enemy that you're casting Planar Ally than that you're casting Magic Missile.)

This special use could be restricted to spellcasters, or to people who also have ranks in Spellcraft.  (If casters: this would be because the feint actually includes drawing on magical energies in such a way as to confuse the issue.)

Opponents with 0 ranks in Spellcraft could be allowed to detect the feint if the bluffer gets a modified roll of less than 0.  (This means that you *must* invest a reasonable number of points into Bluff to avoid being detected by untrained enemies.)

The check could be changed from an opposed check to a set DC--perhaps 10 + spell level.  (This means that the enemy's skill doesn't matter, but simplifies things.)

Characters could use this technique (with a penalty) to disguise one spell as another--especially useful for Illusionists.  (Perhaps one of the best parts of this technique that I've thought of yet--poor Illusionists.)  (Hard question: What happens if somebody tries to counterspell using the wrong spell?  What if they try to counterspell the wrong spell using Dispel Magic?)


----------



## Epametheus (Jan 29, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If you cannot see the difference between creating a spell for the effect and creating a spell to take advantage of a loophole in the rules, I cannot help you.
> 
> Everyone here knows that he did not create the 0th level Screw U spell just to flip off his opponents. And, everyone here knows that most 0th level spells have almost no effect in combat expect in the most extreme circumstances. I applaud the DM for taking it away once he found out how potent of a 0th level spell it was. There is a difference between reasonableness and extremism when it comes to rules lawyering.




No, he created a spell to fake out his enemies.  If enemies are waiting to attack him when he's casting, then he's got this "blank charge" spell that he developed just for the purpose of provoking enemy fire prematurely.

I'd say that cantrips are just too crappy to ever be castable as swift actions, but it's fine as a first level spell.  He's still getting shot, for chrissake's.

Would you still have a problem with this if he was using a quickened Dancing Lights for the same result?


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 29, 2005)

Epametheus said:
			
		

> No, he created a spell to fake out his enemies.




No, he created a spell to ensure that his next spell cannot get disrupted.



			
				Epametheus said:
			
		

> If enemies are waiting to attack him when he's casting, then he's got this "blank charge" spell that he developed just for the purpose of provoking enemy fire prematurely.
> 
> I'd say that cantrips are just too crappy to ever be castable as swift actions, but it's fine as a first level spell.  He's still getting shot, for chrissake's.




Irrelevant. When combined with Protection From Arrows or Mirror Image (and even without them), this is a combo that basically negates a game mechanic and it does it against multiple opponents simultaneously. No different than a 0th level (or even 1st level) spell that negated Sunders or Trips or any other game mechanic.

Sorry, I am immune to spell disruption by Readied Actions because I found a loophole in the rules.

Sorry, I am immune to spell disruption by Attacks of Opportunities because I found a loophole in the rules.

Sorry, I am immune to spell disruption by Touch Attacks because I found a loophole in the rules.

None of this should be allowed in a game.



			
				Epametheus said:
			
		

> Would you still have a problem with this if he was using a quickened Dancing Lights for the same result?




I would have no problem with it being a 4th level spell, the earliest you can Quicken a 0th level spell.

He uses one medium level spell to ensure that another spell can be cast. Not a problem. Using a zero or first level spell to do this is imbalanced.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 29, 2005)

On behalf of the EnWorld Fantasy Basketball League ( http://basketball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/nba/3426 ) I feel compelled to defend this tactic as NOT meta-gaming.

Spell vs. Archer combat is a fairly typical encounter in the world of D&D.  I'd say it is at least vaguely analogous to real world Basketball, layup vs. basket defender.

It is extremely typical for a player on offense, attempting to make a layup at the basket (that is, for non-basketball fans, taking a shot from close to the basket, rather than from far away, and "laying it up" to the basket), to face a defender who has literally readied an action to block any attempted shot by the offensive player.  The defender stands near the basket, waiting to jump and try to block the shot.  They look for the signs of a jump, a muscle twitch, a look, a spin of the ball, etc...and react when they think the shot is being attempted by the offensive player.  If they are correct, there is a good chance they can block the shot, as it is very hard for an offensive player to "concentrate" enough to get the ball into the basket when they have some other guys hands on the ball, or in their face, right at the critical moment.

It is also a fairly standard tactic for the offensive player to bluff at the last moment, and either pass the ball to another offensive player near the basket, or move another way, or jump back and take a longer shot while falling away (called a fade-away shot), or simply (and this is the analogous move) to jump up looking like you are shooting, and then coming right back down again still holding the ball...triggering the defensive player's attempted block, and then sidestepping that defensive player as he comes back down and taking the easy shot.

It's pretty much the same situation (give or take, well, a lot).  In real life, people will fake an offensive move, thus triggering an action to block that offensive move from the defender, and then take the REAL offensive move before the defending player can get back into position to defend again.

It's not metagaming at all to play this way, using tactics, expecting a readied action to block your attack, and fake that attack to trigger the readied defense before taking the real attack action.

If it can happen in real life, then it just isn't metagaming at all for it to happen in the game.

Okay...I have basketball on the brain...sorry


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Jan 29, 2005)

Now you're being silly. Neither the spell nor the tactic makes the character immune to disruption by readied actions. (And it certainly doesn't need to be combined with mirror image and protection from arrows--if protection from arrows works at all, it's sufficient by itself, and combined with mirror image any kind of fakery would be superfluous).

What it does do is enable the character to fake out opponents without spellcraft and with basic readied actions. There's a big difference there. The wizard who is waiting to disrupt a spell "worth disrupting" with his magic missile spell will still disrupt the spell in the caster uses this tactic. If the archers figure out "hey, I don't know what he's casting, but that little spell thing he does doesn't seem to do anything and I'm not hitting him in time to disrupt it; I think I'll wait for a standard action or greater spell next time," it won't work.

Similarly, taking a movent or miscellaneous AoO in order to get a spell off without risk of disruption does not render a character immune to disruption by AoOs. (As the character will find out if he tries it on a foe with combat reflexes or a similar special ability). 

For that matter, AoOs and readied actions to disrupt spells could just as easily be viewed as cheap loopholes in the rules that enable characters with "just a bow" or "just a club" to negate entire categories of mechanics: spells and spell like abilities.

Half of your rhetoric here seems to maintain that any strategy that gives the players a way to neutralize obvious tactics is a loophole in the rules. They're not and you know it. I say you know it because the other half of your rhetoric says "well, OK, it's actually fine as a tactic, but it should use a higher level spell slot." IME, OTOH, low-mid level wizards have few enough slots that using a first or second level spell for this purpose is just fine balance-wise. It's one fewer magic missile or ray of enfeeblement he'll be throwing. For high level wizards, using the quickened/swift spell action is a sufficient cost in itself. That's a round where he won't be casting a quickened ray of enfeeblement, assay resistance, quickened scorching ray, etc. or using a metamagic rod of quickening to unleash a quickened chain lightning.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> No, he created a spell to ensure that his next spell cannot get disrupted.
> 
> Irrelevant. When combined with Protection From Arrows or Mirror Image (and even without them), this is a combo that basically negates a game mechanic and it does it against multiple opponents simultaneously. No different than a 0th level (or even 1st level) spell that negated Sunders or Trips or any other game mechanic.
> 
> ...


----------



## green slime (Jan 29, 2005)

Serious archers do not wait around for the wizard to get an action. They make certain the sieve/wizard springs all sorts of leaks, ASAP. With Rapid Shot, and given the low AC of the typical wizard, most arrows are going to hit. archers with rapid shot should always choose to shoot 2 (or more) arrows rather than waiting around to shoot only one. (and that could be claimed to be metagaming...) A dead or unconscious wizard will not be casting any spells at all.

Eldritch Knight Archers also have no problem discerning between _feather fall_ and _fireball_.

I fail to see how this tactic is so game breaking. Firstly, he is using 1st level slot (which is limited in number to 4 or 5). IMO, the most effective spell in the game is _magic missile_. Every _feather fall_ memorised is a boon, not a bane, for the DM. 

In our experience, with defensive spells and Maxed out concentration, the concentration check is not such a big deal anyway after the wizard hits 10th level. So why waste a 1st level spell slot?


----------



## RigaMortus (Jan 29, 2005)

Slightly off topic, but I am just curious...  Those who feel this tactic is metagaming...

In a campaign I play in, I often purposely provoke AoOs (I have mobility so it is unlikely I will get hit) so that the large minotaur in our group can make grapple attempts w/o being provoked himself and thus negating the grapple attempt.  The minotaur obviously has the size and strength for the grapple, but a low AC so will often get disrupted, which is why I "bait" the opponent and provoke for him.  Am I metagaming?  Bare in mind, the opponent may have Combat Reflexes and I would not be aware of that, so this tactic doesn't work 100% of the time.  But still, would ya'll considering that metagaming?

I would think the spellcasting tactic is the same thing as what me and my minotaur partner do.



			
				two said:
			
		

> It went like this:
> 
> Retrieve a components (free action)
> Drop it (free action)
> ...




This doesn't work.  You can only "retrieve a spell component" as a free action as part of casting a spell.  Just like you are allowed to make a touch attack as part of casting a spell.

If he does not immediately cast a spell from retrieving the spell component (USING that spell component), then it is a move action.


----------



## RigaMortus (Jan 29, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Altamont Ravenard said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What if it was a Move Action to cast?  Could it be disrupted then?  Hey, it could happen...


----------



## Kast (Jan 29, 2005)

This is a good tactic, using a Quickened spell to trick that ready action. However, if there was no Featherfall spell the caster would normally have to have quicken spell and burn a 4th level spell to make it work. Since that's such a disparity in levels, I would make Featherfall an exception (it already is really) and rule that it is cast so quickly that it doesn't trigger the "if he casts a spell . . ." ready action. To go with this, I certainly wouldn't allow a cantrip that is cast as a free action to do it either. I'd give the player back his research costs and tell him you made a mistake --  if he researched it just for this purpose.


----------



## shilsen (Jan 29, 2005)

RigaMortus said:
			
		

> Slightly off topic, but I am just curious...  Those who feel this tactic is metagaming...
> 
> In a campaign I play in, I often purposely provoke AoOs (I have mobility so it is unlikely I will get hit) so that the large minotaur in our group can make grapple attempts w/o being provoked himself and thus negating the grapple attempt.  The minotaur obviously has the size and strength for the grapple, but a low AC so will often get disrupted, which is why I "bait" the opponent and provoke for him.  Am I metagaming?  Bare in mind, the opponent may have Combat Reflexes and I would not be aware of that, so this tactic doesn't work 100% of the time.  But still, would ya'll considering that metagaming?




No, that isn't metagaming, but just intelligent tactical thinking. As is often the case in D&D, a great part of the perception lies in the description:

EXAMPLE1

Player1: My PC walks past the orc to draw an AoO.
Player2: Cool! That means my PC can try to grapple without the orc getting an AoO on him.
DM: You metagaming little *#$!*)#

EXAMPLE2

Player1: Maelwyn selflessly moves into a seemingly disadvantageous position, trying to tempt the orc into attacking him, so that Bessie the minotaur can attack with less danger to herself.

Player2: Bessie seizes the opportunity presented by Maelwyn's tactic and attempts to grab the distracted orc in her muscular arms.

DM: Nice thinking! The orc swings unsuccessfully at Maelwyn and is unable to pull its battleaxe back into position quickly enough to disrupt Bessie's atack.

...

Both of the examples are exactly the same situation, but one sounds a whole lot more like metagaming than the other. But it isn't.


----------



## Staffan (Jan 29, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> archer fires and then retreats if he didn't take down the wizard.
> 
> or ducks behind cover.
> 
> ...



I think you're confusing "Ready action" with "Delay".

"Delay" means you sit around and wait. At any later point, you can re-enter the initiative order and take any full action you want (as long as it's something you can do normally), but you can't interrupt anyone.

"Ready action" is more active. When readying an action, you specify a trigger and an action you're going to take if that trigger happens. The action in a ready action can only be a standard action, not a full round's worth of actions (though you get the move action when starting to ready).


----------



## drnuncheon (Jan 29, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This is incorrect as per the definition of readied actions. They always interrupt the action. The results of the interruption, however, does not always prevent the action.




This, too, causes problems.  The interrupts are _resolved_ before the triggering action - that doesn't mean they _begin_ before the triggering action.  In other words, the triggering action is not atomic - it can be divided (in this case only).

Archer: "I ready an action to shoot him if he speaks a word"
Wizard: "Ab-"
Archer's bow: "p'toing!"
Wizard: "Ungh!"
Wizard: "-raxas..."


----------



## drnuncheon (Jan 29, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> No, he created a spell to ensure that his next spell cannot get disrupted.




Sure it can.  Just not by someone readying an action to 'attack when he casts a spell'.



> Irrelevant. When combined with Protection From Arrows or Mirror Image (and even without them), this is a combo that basically negates a game mechanic and it does it against multiple opponents simultaneously.




I'd say _protection from arrows_ does that by itself.  BAN IT!



> Sorry, I am immune to spell disruption by Readied Actions because I found a loophole in the rules.




...except you're not.  At least, I don't see anything limiting you to 'I ready my shot for when he casts a spell'.



> Sorry, I am immune to spell disruption by Attacks of Opportunities because I found a loophole in the rules.




Yeah, we should ban Combat Casting.



> I would have no problem with it being a 4th level spell, the earliest you can Quicken a 0th level spell.




You realize that by this logic, an unquickened _feather fall_ must be a -3rd level spell.

J


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 29, 2005)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> It's pretty much the same situation (give or take, well, a lot).  In real life, people will fake an offensive move, thus triggering an action to block that offensive move from the defender, and then take the REAL offensive move before the defending player can get back into position to defend again.
> 
> It's not metagaming at all to play this way, using tactics, expecting a readied action to block your attack, and fake that attack to trigger the readied defense before taking the real attack action.
> 
> If it can happen in real life, then it just isn't metagaming at all for it to happen in the game.




Thank you for proving the opposite of what you intended to prove.

In real life, even if you attempt to fake out the defender, sometimes he STILL blocks the shot.

That is the reason the archers get a to hit roll. That is the reason the Wizard gets a Concentration roll.

Some of the to hit rolls miss sometimes. Some of the time, all of the to hit rolls miss. Some of the time, the Concentration roll gets made.


The difference between the game example and your example is that the Wizard GUARANTEES that he will still make his shot (shy of going below 1 hit point, but this tactic wouldn't be used if the Wizard was on low hit points), no matter WHO the defender is. The best archer in the world and the Wizard 100% all of the times makes sure that the spell is not interrupted.

Hence, the reason it is metagaming. Making yourself immune to a gaming possibility merely because of how the rules are written. It doesn't happen in basketball, it shouldn't happen in the game.

Thanks for your help. Our side of this position could not have done it without you.


----------



## Pbartender (Jan 29, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> Believe it or not, he dropped a pebble or bat guano.
> 
> Serious.  When things looked a little scary.  He would grab a rock from the ground or use a pebble from his spell component bag.  Retrieving components from the bag is a free action; so it dropping something.
> 
> ...




It is not legal.  You need to start checking your rulebooks.

Preparing a material component is only a free action if you are using it as a component for a spell your are casting.  So, it is a free action to pull bat guano out of your spell component pouch when you cast a Fireball.  Bat guano is NOT a component for a Feather Fall spell, it would be the target.  Therefore, it is a Move Action that provokes an Attack of Opportunity, when ever he pulls out bat guano to drop.

The round should look more like (assuming the enemy wins initiate, or the wizard delays his action to take advantage):


Enemy fighters charge wizard, and possibly deal damage.
Enemy archers prepare a readied action to shot him with arrows if he casts a spell.
Wizard retrieves a stored item (move action).
Wizard gets hit or missed by Attacks of Opportunity.
Wizard drops it (free action).
Wizard makes a Concentration check to cast Feather Fall or take more AoOs (give those fighters Combat Reflexes).
Wizard casts Feather Fall on dropping item, if he made the Concentration Check (free action).
Wizard gets hit or missed by readied attacks.
Wizard can now move _or_ cast a spell (making another Concentration check to avoid AoOs).

Doesn't like look quite so good a tactic, that way, does it?



			
				two said:
			
		

> He also considered casting Feather Fall on incoming arrows, for the arrows are released before the spell is finished (readied action, after all), but that's just too absurd.  Arrows are, after all, free-falling.  They are also moving horizontally at a good clip.  But this I nixed.  Just too, too silly, and anyway the target of the spell has to be known as the spell BEGINS to be cast -- not a millisecond after.  Is what I ruled.




The Feather Fall spell description outlaws it anyway...

"This spell has no special effect on ranged weapons unless they are falling quite a distance."


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 29, 2005)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> Yeah, we should ban Combat Casting.




Last I heard, Combat Casting does not make you immune to spell failure for taking damage. Guess you must be playing a different rule set than the rest of us.



			
				drnuncheon said:
			
		

> You realize that by this logic, an unquickened _feather fall_ must be a -3rd level spell.




Hardly. You must be using that darn advanced math again.  


The point of this entire issue is not that what the player did was illegal. Nobody is arguing that the action was illegal. But, not all legal game actions are also non-abusive and non-exploitive.

In this case, the player exploited the rules beyond where some DMs draw the line. You might not draw the line there, but I would think that most DMs at least have a line drawn somewhere.

There are a lot of ways to increase your AC (cover or spells) or increase your Concentration chance (Combat Casting or Skill Focus) without resorting to tricking your DM into allowing you to have a swift 0th level spell to exploit a rules loophole. IMO.


With regard to the "using Feather Fall" to get the same effect, I would rule as DM that you are using too many free actions "during another action" (free actions are taken during other actions, not outside of them). One free action to pull out the bat guano, one free action to drop it, and one swift action to cast Feather Fall on it. Limit it to two free actions per move or standard action and this tactic disappears since you cannot simultaneously cast Feather Fall while casting another spell and not have both possibly be disrupted by the readied arrows.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 29, 2005)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> This, too, causes problems.  The interrupts are _resolved_ before the triggering action - that doesn't mean they _begin_ before the triggering action.  In other words, the triggering action is not atomic - it can be divided (in this case only).
> 
> Archer: "I ready an action to shoot him if he speaks a word"
> Wizard: "Ab-"
> ...




It can be viewed this way. But the important point with regard to game mechanics is that a swift spell or a free action can be interrupted via a readied action. This could be important if the target goes unconscious.

A swift spell does not require a Concentration roll if the caster takes damage, but if he goes unconscious, the spell is not cast and in fact is lost (or at least that is how I would rule it, I doubt there is actually a rule on it).

But, there are also situations where it does not matter. If the free action is to drop your weapon, regardless of getting hit with an arrow, you still drop your weapon.


----------



## AuraSeer (Jan 29, 2005)

Philip said:
			
		

> Any archer who readies an attack contingent on spellcasting IS metagaming.
> 
> Any sane non-metagaming archer knows that a single arrow can kill a human opponent, or at least hurt him a lot and disrupt his ability to concentrate with the arrow sticking in him.



Nonsense. You're confusing the gameworld with the real world.
In the gameworld, where that archer has lived his whole life, a single arrow usually *can't* kill any significant opponent. If he has ever seen a combat before, he knows that lots of powerful enemies can survive multiple arrow shots. That's how his world works, and he'd have to be really stupid not to notice.

The reason people stay standing is irrelevant. Even though the archer knows nothing about "hit points" or "combat rounds" or any of those game terms, he does know that shooting one arrow is unlikely to kill anybody except a defenseless commoner. It's perfectly reasonable for him to act based on that knowledge.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 29, 2005)

As a Balance Nazi, the only problem I see is that generally level 0 spells should not be Free Actions.  My 11th level Wizard is, in fact, constantly wishing he had more 1st level spells.  Every Feather Fall (or ScrewU) is a Protection from Evil or Enlarge Person he does not have for his buddies.

If this were a 11th+ level Wizard I would laugh in the face any DM who got irate over his archers failing to disrupt spells.  If this is a lower level Wizard he is using very precious spell slots and delays to avoid disruptions.  I call that good tactics.

The metagaming argument is based on arbitrary presumptions about what "should" work.  These particular simple tactics only work at low and low-mid Wizards anyway.  If the in question Wizard is paying reasonable in game costs (an appropriate spell slot, delaying his initiative, watching NPCs carefully, etc.) then the metagaming argument is just a lot of hot air.

Would it be metagaming if my 11th Wizard drops a Quickened Glitterdust or Quickened Stinking Cloud on the archers and then follows up with a Fireball without fear of disruption?


----------



## entr0py (Jan 29, 2005)

Meta-gaming or not, the combat in the game is tactical and this tactic breaks no rules.  I say its fine, and as DM your job is simple.  What goes around - comes around.  Use it against the players.  

I personally feel all the combat maneuvers are too low risk, and too easy to do successfully.  Trip especially --  you get to sweep someone's legs and knock them flat by merely making a touch attack and a strength roll?  You mean armor and shield have nothing to do with making that tactic just a little bit harder to pull off?  But it is RAW, and as such, ppl will design character builds to capitalize on a strong tactic.  A good DM will give it right back to the players or find other ways to challenge them.

Tactically D&D is like a grandiose version of Rock - Paper - Scissors  -- but the DM always knows what the players will throw


----------



## drnuncheon (Jan 29, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Last I heard, Combat Casting does not make you immune to spell failure for taking damage. Guess you must be playing a different rule set than the rest of us.




It _can_ make you immune to AoOs, though, for at least some of your spells. A 1 is not an automatic failure on a skill roll, so if you have a bonus of 15+your spell level, you'll never take an AoO for casting that spell.  And if your concentration is high enough, it can make you immune to normal hits.  Same rules as everyone else.



> With regard to the "using Feather Fall" to get the same effect, I would rule as DM that you are using too many free actions "during another action" (free actions are taken during other actions, not outside of them). One free action to pull out the bat guano, one free action to drop it, and one swift action to cast Feather Fall on it. Limit it to two free actions per move or standard action and this tactic disappears since you cannot simultaneously cast Feather Fall while casting another spell and not have both possibly be disrupted by the readied arrows.




So, you'd think it was OK if he pulled out the bat guano as an action beforehand?  Or if he dropped something he was already holding in his hand (like a staff, a dagger, or a lantern)?  It kinda seems like a very specific ruling, and one that wouldn't really accomplish what you want.

J


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 29, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> With regard to the "using Feather Fall" to get the same effect, I would rule as DM that you are using too many free actions "during another action" (free actions are taken during other actions, not outside of them). One free action to pull out the bat guano, one free action to drop it, and one swift action to cast Feather Fall on it. Limit it to two free actions per move or standard action and this tactic disappears since you cannot simultaneously cast Feather Fall while casting another spell and not have both possibly be disrupted by the readied arrows.




That is not a "solution" at all.  I can just carry a few copper pennies in my left hand and drop one as a Free action.  Or drop my dagger.


----------



## Diirk (Jan 29, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The difference between the game example and your example is that the Wizard GUARANTEES that he will still make his shot (shy of going below 1 hit point, but this tactic wouldn't be used if the Wizard was on low hit points), no matter WHO the defender is. The best archer in the world and the Wizard 100% all of the times makes sure that the spell is not interrupted.




It doesn't gaurantee it, though. The archer could ready an action to disrupt the second spell being cast, and disrupt the real spell just fine... or a multitude of other possibilities. The wizard might get away with it once per fight, but then the opponents will see what he's done and know better. The reason the basketball analogy falls apart so much here is that basketball isn't usually played to the death, so finding out the other teams tactics etc beforehand isn't as hard as it can be sometimes in DnD


----------



## RigaMortus (Jan 29, 2005)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> This, too, causes problems.  The interrupts are _resolved_ before the triggering action - that doesn't mean they _begin_ before the triggering action.  In other words, the triggering action is not atomic - it can be divided (in this case only).
> 
> Archer: "I ready an action to shoot him if he speaks a word"
> Wizard: "Ab-"
> ...




This is how I see it to, otherwise you get into paradoxes.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 29, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Thank you for proving the opposite of what you intended to prove.
> 
> In real life, even if you attempt to fake out the defender, sometimes he STILL blocks the shot.




And, if you played your monsters a bit more intelligently...by having some waiting until the SECOND spell cast, you too could still blovk the shot even with a fake-out.



> That is the reason the archers get a to hit roll. That is the reason the Wizard gets a Concentration roll.




No, if you followed my example, the concentration check comes in when the defender's readied action goes off WITHOUT the fake-out.  With the fake-out, the shot usually goes in.  This is, in fact, the primary reason so many players get fouled near the basket...defenders tend to just foul them before the shot rather than making the attempt to decide whether they should block the first apparent shot, or wait for the fake and try to block the second apparent shot.

Of course, most Basketball players consider fouling under the basket, particularly against a person who is a poor free-thrower, to be gaming the system   



> Some of the to hit rolls miss sometimes. Some of the time, all of the to hit rolls miss. Some of the time, the Concentration roll gets made.




That all comes into play with an attempted block of an actual shot attempt...not the fake-out. 



> The difference between the game example and your example is that the Wizard GUARANTEES that he will still make his shot (shy of going below 1 hit point, but this tactic wouldn't be used if the Wizard was on low hit points), no matter WHO the defender is.




I totally 100% disagree.  Your defenders are fully capable of readying an action to attempt to block the second attempt to cast a spell in the same round...which is exactly what many basketball defenders try to do.  You just don't want them to ready the action that way, which is your own fault.



> The best archer in the world and the Wizard 100% all of the times makes sure that the spell is not interrupted.




Unless, of course, you do the obvious thing and ready against the second spell, not the first.



> Hence, the reason it is metagaming. Making yourself immune to a gaming possibility merely because of how the rules are written. It doesn't happen in basketball, it shouldn't happen in the game.
> 
> Thanks for your help. Our side of this position could not have done it without you.




Your sarcasm not withstanding, my analogy still stands, and still disproves your position.  Some defenders do not react to the first apparent shot/spell attempt.  Either it's because they can tell a fake-out (IE they make their spellcraft check), or their couch TOLD them to wait for the second one, or their experience tells them to wait for the second one (in which case their readied action goes off only for the second shot/spell attempt in the same round).

This is not metagaming.  It's exactly what would happen in real life.  If people are constantly having their offensive moves interupted by defenders readying an action to interupt them, they are going to come up with their own tactics to fake-out the defender.  And, eventually, the defenders will come up with their own tactics to deal with that situation (such as readying only against the second apparent offensive move, or improving their skill in identifying an actual offensive move as it is happening).

You just don't personally like the tactic, and are using a nonapplicable general argument against it to try and explain your position.  I think your position is not only flawed, but will come back to haunt you in the future.  If you decide in your game that this is "metagaming", then it is only a matter of time before your players point out something in your own DM'ing tactics that lets the monsters "metagame" according to this precedent you are setting up for them.  It will devolve into further arguments, and hurt your game in general.  If you don't like the tactic, either work on tactics to deal with it, or rule that swift/immediate/free actions cannot be the subject of a readied action, and be done with it.


----------



## Caliban (Jan 29, 2005)

Players are going to meta-game from time to time.  Sometimes a lot of the time. That's a simple fact of life.  Complaining about it or using DM fiat to force people to play the way you want them do doesn't make things any better.  It just makes everyone annoyed and irritable.

If you feel they are meta-gaming to an unreasonable degree, adjust the bad guys tactics so that it no longer works.   Have the bad guys meta-game just enough to counter his tactic, without telling the player.  Let him figure it out.

Another thing to consider: The DMG, page 25, *Adjudicating the Ready Action* states "If a character specifies a readied action and then decides not to perform the action when the conditions are met, the standard rule is that the character can keep his action readied."
The DM has the option of forcing a DC 15 wisdom check to avoid taking the action, but it's not required.

So it could break down like this:

Bad guy readies an action for when the spell caster casts a spell. 

Spellcaster casts a free action spell (thereby meeting the conditions for the ready action).

Bad guy decides not to take the readied action, since the spell is a free/swift action (which should be obvious). 

Spellcaster now has to decide if he wants to risk casting a regular spell, or whip out a wand, move behind cover, or any of a dozen other things he could do instead.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 30, 2005)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Bad guy decides not to take the readied action, since the spell is a free/swift action (which should be obvious).




...as per the section in the DMG (early pages, can't remember exactly) where it suggests appropriate descriptive text for certain actions... including casting free action spells 

Interestingly, it is difficult to  remember a situation in any game I've played in or ran since 3e started that any archer has taken a readied action to attempt to disrupt a spellcaster. In every case the archers typically think "full attack, rapid shot, take the blighter down ASAP". They know that if they aim at the wizard the wizard is likely to take as his action "move out of line of sight to archers, cast spell", thus rendering the archers actions useless.

If there was an ambush situation where the spellcasters are likely to be unaware of the readying archers it might happen. If the party got initiative on a very powerful caster who was going to cast the Ultimate Doom (tm) spell then they might attempt to disrupt his spellcasting through a readied action.

But it hasn't happened yet. Just shooting has been the superior tactic to date!

Cheers


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 30, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> A PC dropped unconscious next to a Giant and next to the party Druid. The Druid, fearing that the PC might be close to dead, decided to heal him, but didn't want to risk losing the spell from an Attack of Opportunity from the Giant.
> 
> So, the player declared that the Druid would move and cast a spell. He moved away 5 feet, the Giant did an AoO against him and hit him, and then he moved back 5 feet and tried to heal the fallen PC.




I just have to ask... why didn't the druid consider casting defensively? I suppose he might have put no ranks at all into concentration (in which case it serves him right) but that would have been the best choice for healing the comerade - especially when facing the possibility of an AoO from a giant!

Cheers


----------



## Harmon (Jan 30, 2005)

Example suggestion-
GM- "The archers look to be waiting for something on."

X- "Cast the finger at them."

GM <dice rattle and consulted>

X- "What do they do?"

GM- "They seem to be waiting for something and ignore the finger."

X <head scratching> "cast fireball at them-"

GM <dice rattle and consulted> "they shoot you.  Readied action.  Spell craft skill made so they know what spell you were casting."

X <looking bewildered> 

Just a suggestion.  Good luck with the player.


----------



## dvvega (Jan 30, 2005)

Throughout this whole discussion, I've not seen one post as to why the wizard/player does not cast defensively instead of doing the whole bluff thing.

Most wizards who intend to be casting in combat have a good Concentration score (purely on ranks, they normally have them maxed out).

Since there was no mention of the wizard's level, let us assume they are 5th (fireball available).

Two wizards, average stats except for INT. Both wish to cast Fireball without AOO.

Wizard 1: maxed out Concentration (8 ranks). Requires a 10 on his Concentration roll to avoid AOO. Will not take any damage from the casting.

Wizard 2: uses this tactic. Requires nothing to avoid AOO for his fireball. Will take damage from the casting (the first spell draws out the attacks).

Neither seems to have a decided advantage above the other. To make himself "immune" to the damage from the arrows, Wizard 2 is going to need Protection from Arrows, Stoneskin, or some other DR spell. He is using another spell to make the plan work. With these spells he could just cast away, draw AOOs, take no damage, and cast safely after a basic Concentration check of DC10.

Of course if he has no concentration, Wizard 2 needs some other way to avoid the problem (hence the tactic).

The tactic in and of itself is great. Any trained, intelligent wizard would weigh up his chances and decide what to do.

What I don't agree about this tactic is: 
* a 0-level spell should not have this ability. 
* In and of itself the spell was harmless (at initial appearance), however the DM obviously didn't think far enough ahead along the chain of thought that the player had. 
* <sarcasm>Congratulations to the player for tricking his DM</sarcasm>. 

Instead of removing/banning the cantrip, the DM should just state that "no cantrip may cause a significant distraction that a season combatant will be affected". That way the player gets his "Screw U" spell, but doesn't gain the benefit he had envisioned.

As for the Feather Fall replacement idea, the guy isn't falling, so my personal DM ruling would be "I'm sorry but you're not falling so its trigger has not been met". He can of course go and expend a quickened 1st level spell, or use a metamagic rod or what have you. But he's going to have to use resources to make it work. That would achieve a nice synergy - give and take - about the tactic. Make up for the benefit of the standard Wizard.

As to the topic of metagaming: everyone does it at some stage. Even the DM, inherently, is metagaming when he states that all his trained combatants know to hold for Wizards. What is a wizard in his world? Do they all wear Point Hats of Wizardry (TM)? How do they know it is a wizard?

For example in one region of my world, Wizardry is highly stylised and training is accomplished in government sanctioned guilds. Wizards must wear a specific outfit in public and wouldn't be seen dead in anything else. The advantages to this are the fear factor. Most people who recognise the robes are in awe of the wizard. Of course it makes them a target as well. However other regions do not have these regulations, so a wizard could dress as a stable boy and no one would figure it out until the first fireball was launched.

I can sympathise with KarinsDad when he argues that it is metagaming because it is a way to avoid all the perils of spell casting, however to avoid them all the Wizard would need at least 3 spells cast: the 0-level, the spell he wants to cast, a defensive spell (Protection from Arrows). 

To the DM, there have been many solutions given out as to how you can "screw" the player for his methods. 

My suggestion is to simply not allow Feather Fall to qualify for the quickened casting effect unless he is actually falling, and ruling that all 0-level spells can't distract people. This way, he is going to have to use some other spell to pull off his tactic. You are not negating his tactics this way, you are encouraging clever play, however you are setting a price to pay for bypassing rules and tricking the DM. The price here is either a metamagic rod or a quickened 1st level spell.

D


----------



## Caliban (Jan 30, 2005)

dvvega said:
			
		

> Throughout this whole discussion, I've not seen one post as to why the wizard/player does not cast defensively instead of doing the whole bluff thing.




Because casting defensively only prevents you from provoking an AoO.  It does not help you at all against an archer with a readied action.


----------



## sullivan (Jan 31, 2005)

Please forgive me if this has been mentioned already, but I don't have the desire, nor even the stomach to wade through a couple of pages of posts about this. Frankly I would rather metaphorically gouge out my eyes than tranverse a sea of complaints of metagaming that don't really work towards solving the situtation.

"two" could just make the problem go away by not crutching so hard on a given game mechanic. It would seem that the player in question, and frankly the character, would seem to be doing what they are in direct response to how the GM is running the NPCs. So if the NPCs don't put so much emphasis on readying and keying on spellcasters (how they determine who is the spellcaster of course is an interesting question, at least until the PCs start casting).

Another thing that is possible is that the spell in question get moved from 0 level up to somewhere near 4th level where it belongs. Featherfall is where it is for two specific reasons, which are really only one: "legacy". For Featherfall to be functional in game mechanics it needs to be fast. Pre-3ed it was an oddity of a spell. Then 3e came along with Quicken metamagic. Because of this I suggest that Featherfall is a very poor benchmark for gauging level slotting of Quickened spells. Given that Quicken normally moves a spell up 4 levels. So this is a relatively low powered effects spell, so maybe you could argue it is only 3rd level. But I'd be hard pressed to lower it past there.

Now the PC will be burning a 3rd level spell to produce the same effect. If two can't live with that, then I suggest two might just be crying sour grapes over being outsmarted by a [immature?] player.

To adjust the spell level midstream two is going to have to swallow a bit of pride and humbly admit to making a mistake in originally assigning the level to the spell during design. There will be a small shattering of disbelief, but if two is in fact the mature one here (implied by labeling the player immature) he'll have to lead the way and smooth it through.

EDIT: P.S. The best solution in my mind is for both of these to be done. That two eases up on the use of readying and that the spell level be adjusted to where it likely should have been to start with.


----------



## Psimancer (Jan 31, 2005)

I’ve had a similar issue; this is how I resolved it…

Player casts suspect spell…

DM – “As the spell goes off, you are besieged by an almighty headache”

Player – “What the…”

DM – “Make a Knowledge (Arcana) check”

Player – “I got a 14”

DM – “You are not sure why…”

Later that session, the Player casts the spell again…

DM – “Again, you assailed by a migraine. You also take 1 point of damage from it and Concentration checks are at -2…”

Player – “What the…”

DM – “Make a Knowledge (Arcana) check”

Player – “I got a 17”

DM – “You think the spell is overtaxing your body when you cast it; if you were to memorise it at the next level up, it might resolve the issue…”

Player refuses to memorise and cast the spell at a higher level. When next he casts it…

DM – “The pain in your head is phenomenal. You are bleeding from the nose and ears. You take 4 points of damage and all mental skills are at -2; this includes Concentration and all Int, Wis and Cha skills”

Player – “Awww, come on… what gives…”

DM – “The spell is obviously too powerful to be contained at that level… you were able to control the negative affects for a while, but your grasp is slipping…”

Player starts memorising and casting it at the next level up…


----------



## sullivan (Jan 31, 2005)

I like that in-game explaination Psimancer.

However I get the sense that two will have to go OOC before or after to help explain that this is being done because he made a mistake, not just because the player is being punished for the tactic (which BTW i think was a very creative responce to a presented problem). Without doing that the player is very likely going to feel screwed over.

Of course two will have to beleive this instead of just having a hate-on for the player, which he seems to have right now. Of course that hate could be based in fustration of being thwarted. Or there could be other baggage issues that we can't see directly because we haven't been sitting at the table with them. vbmenu_register("postmenu_1987994", true);


----------



## Psimancer (Jan 31, 2005)

Sullivan, I agreed. While I don’t have an issue with the tactic that the player has employed, I do have an issue with the deception he has (possibly) engaged in to achieve it. Personally, I feel the player has done himself an injustice, as his DM will no longer trust anything he tries to bring into the game. If the tactic was discovered after the fact, then the player really shouldn’t have a problem with the adjustment.


----------



## two (Jan 31, 2005)

*It's so hard to say what one means...*

First off, in response to those people that think I'm "readying" actions every single round.

I'm not, I never claimed to be doing so, and I won't in the future.

ON AVERAGE I USE A "READIED" ACTION PERHAPS  ONCE EVERY OTHER BATTLE.

I realize this is a lot more than other GM's.  But not something that has the players rolling their eyes ("oh that old thing again").

To the GM that has NEVER had an archer, even once in their campaign, "ready" a shot vs. a spellcaster -- that statement pretty much tells me all I need to know.  It's like saying "oh, I've never had a monster take an AOO vs. a PC" or "I've never thrown a spellcaster against a party of PCs".  It seems clear to me that the game is less fun and less interesting if you remove obvious tactical ploys like "readying" a spell interrupt action, which can be very effective.  "can be."  Scare quotes.  Given my situation.

There are a number of related issues here.  Those that say casually "oh I never bother having an archer ready a shot; the wizard just will see it and get cover and then cast a spell."  That assumes a bunch of stuff, most importantly:  that it's OBVIOUS when somebody is readying an action.  This is not covered in the rules.  Do you require the archer to be staring directly at the wizard?  What if the archer wants to NOT stare at the wizard but still ready an action?  What if the archer simply has an unknown initiative count (to the wizard); what's the difference between a delaying archer staring at a wizard and an archer with a readied action staring at the wizard?  I can go on but won't.  You assume a lot if you automatelly divulge when enemies are readying and against whom and on what trigger.  How are PC's supposed to figure this out, really?

Another rules fuzziness; you CAN explicitely ready a spell interrupt with no ranks of spellcraft and no roll required.  You just know a spell is being cast; it's obvious (or something).  Will a Fighter4 know the difference bewteen a free action cantrip, feather fall, or glitterdust, within the first millisecond of its casting?  IF so, that's one hell of an insightful archer.  That's what a lot of people are suggesting, "just have the readied archers wait out the free action spell and hit 'em on the second one."  I'm all for making a PC's life difficult, but this beggers the imagination.  It's like a Western gunfight, and you are telling one of the gunslingers to "just let him draw and pull the trigger of  his revolver, it's probably empty, but when he whips out that pistol, nail him".  ?  I just can't see a fighter4 20 year old in the middle of combat vs. a wizard of uncertain abilities somehow "waiting out" a free action spell.  It's  spell.  It's what he was waiting for.  He fires.  Am I nuts?

If anyone can give me a better justification for waiting it out besides "use archers with a lot of spellcraft" (LOADS of them about, and coming across scads of those won't be repetitive will it?) I'd be grateful.

To repeat, I took away the cantrip, and am allowing him to burn Feather Falls when he wants to do this trick.  I'll have to enfore the "target" aspect of FF better; probalby the Wizard will start dropping pebbles as somebody already suggested.

I'm not a playa-hata (ha ha, gotta love that stupid phrase).  Player X and I have a good time together; he yanks my chain plenty.  It seems to make the game more fun for him.  

But I am going to use methods to get around his "trick" whenever feasible and reasonable in-game.  I'm not going to have animals or undead suddenly "readying" stuff.  That's just retarded.

My main point is this:  I think spellcasters have it very easy in d&d.  Lots of ways to get a spell off, even in dangerous circumstances (5' step is just gravy).  I'm irritated that one of the last remaining ways to accomplish this, which is open to a commoner, is now gone (readying an action).  Am I just being a baby?

Vote aye, or nay, and I'll be outta here.


----------



## sullivan (Jan 31, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> My main point is this: I think spellcasters have it very easy in d&d. Lots of ways to get a spell off, even in dangerous circumstances (5' step is just gravy). I'm irritated that one of the last remaining ways to accomplish this, which is open to a commoner, is now gone (readying an action). Am I just being a baby?
> 
> Vote aye, or nay, and I'll be outta here.




I vote that you are venting, which sounds a lot alike whining but isn't quite.  I mean if you aren't using this tactic often then not much of a loss, right?

Hey, did anyone mention counterspelling? Probably. There are still lots of  ways to screw with a spell caster. Getting him to burn spells and/or reserve slots, even 2nd level, is an expensive way to deal with the chance of an attack that might not hit and may not interrupt anyway.

For what it's worth I don't use Readying to try interupt a huge amount because I find in the long run it's kinda of a lesser strength stategy. First you have to identify the mage. Then you have to run the risk of wasting a full turn waiting on something that may not happen. There are plenty of other options for mages. I'd rather just take the sure thing opportunity to thump them.

P.S. About the target of Readying noticing the person Readying on them, I'd say yes in fact they'd have to be watching relatively intently. They are wanting to act on a momment's notice before the target gets to act. Hey, just another use for Spot, and possibily Bluff and Sense Motive.


----------



## Anax (Jan 31, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> My main point is this:  I think spellcasters have it very easy in d&d.  Lots of ways to get a spell off, even in dangerous circumstances (5' step is just gravy).  I'm irritated that one of the last remaining ways to accomplish this, which is open to a commoner, is now gone (readying an action).  Am I just being a baby?
> 
> Vote aye, or nay, and I'll be outta here.




Aye, I don't think spellcasters have it as easy as you think--we've already noted a ton of things that can make this more difficult, and having archers with ranks in Spellcraft was only one of them.

I will admit, though, that the player in question was being rather obnoxious.  If I came up with this tactic, I would have asked the DM *when I came up with it* and mentioned that the spell research was intended for that purpose.  That's better than trying to be sneaky about things--after all, the DM is *not* the player's enemy, at least until a player blindsides him with something like this without pointing out the consequences.

In my campaign, I know that if I come up with a novel way to use the rules, I will *always* go to the DM first for the stamp of approval before I try to use it in a fight.  That's unless, of course, I come up with it in the middle of a fight.  Your player, however, was certainly thinking ahead with this one--and, well, the player in our group who tries to do things like that is generally met with a stare of disbelief, followed by a "No, we'll talk about it later."  If it's something that he foolishly built into the character without consulting first, the DM will probably be willing to make a retroactive change.  The first time, anyway.

So, as my final word on the subject:

1) The idea of drawing fire is perfectly reasonable--and if a player wants to develop a tactic for his character that could be used that way, it would be appropriate to try to find a reasonable method rather than just saying "no".

2) A player who tries to sneak things past his GM is asking for a beat-down.  The atmosphere is much better when (on the players side) players are willing to approach the GM about a desired tactic, and can expect (on the GM's side) that the GM will provide a means if the tactic isn't unreasonable.

Some players don't understand this model.  Some GM's make it difficult.  The GM's that are willing to put in the time to make sound judgements generally get *very* riled up when players try the "easier to ask for forgiveness" tactic.

So my advice is: Gently suggest to the player that in a situation on the edge of the rules like that, it would be worthwhile to ask first next time.  And then be prepared to give a little if he does, or smack him down if he doesn't.


----------



## FireLance (Jan 31, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> My main point is this:  I think spellcasters have it very easy in d&d.  Lots of ways to get a spell off, even in dangerous circumstances (5' step is just gravy).  I'm irritated that one of the last remaining ways to accomplish this, which is open to a commoner, is now gone (readying an action).  Am I just being a baby?
> 
> Vote aye, or nay, and I'll be outta here.



No, I don't think you're being a baby, but I do think you need to expand on your list of options for dealing with spellcasters. Others have already mentioned making Spellcraft checks to determine what spell is being cast. Why should your archers stick to arrows? Alchemist's fire deals continuous damage and can force Concentration checks (over two rounds, too) even if you hit the spellcaster before he casts his spell. Tanglefoot bags can also force Concentration checks by entangling a spellcaster. Give your archers _sleep arrows_ or custom-made _daze arrows_.

0-level spells and 1st-level spells are cheap but they are resources. Sure your payoff for the ready tactic isn't as great as you hoped it would be (getting the player to spend extra spell slots instead of having a chance to lose another spell being cast), which is why you just need to switch to more effective tactics.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jan 31, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> I'm not, I never claimed to be doing so, and I won't in the future.
> 
> ON AVERAGE I USE A "READIED" ACTION PERHAPS  ONCE EVERY OTHER BATTLE.



That's an awful lot, especially given the inefficiency of the technique, and the individuals (ie - people with no knowledge of magic) who are doing it.

Frankly, if my DM was having people ready actions against me (not other party members, just me) every other battle, I'd be feeling like you had a grudge against me, and I'd be going to great lengths to make your tactic a waste of time.


> That assumes a bunch of stuff, most importantly:  that it's OBVIOUS when somebody is readying an action.  This is not covered in the rules.



Actually, if I remember correctly it is certainly implied that everyone knows when someone is readying an action.

Especially for something as bloody obvious as shooting a bow at you...


> Another rules fuzziness; you CAN explicitely ready a spell interrupt with no ranks of spellcraft and no roll required.  You just know a spell is being cast; it's obvious (or something).  Will a Fighter4 know the difference bewteen a free action cantrip, feather fall, or glitterdust, within the first millisecond of its casting?  IF so, that's one hell of an insightful archer.  That's what a lot of people are suggesting, "just have the readied archers wait out the free action spell and hit 'em on the second one."  I'm all for making a PC's life difficult, but this beggers the imagination.  It's like a Western gunfight, and you are telling one of the gunslingers to "just let him draw and pull the trigger of  his revolver, it's probably empty, but when he whips out that pistol, nail him".  ?  I just can't see a fighter4 20 year old in the middle of combat vs. a wizard of uncertain abilities somehow "waiting out" a free action spell.  It's  spell.  It's what he was waiting for.  He fires.  Am I nuts?



Well, a free action spell is the time it takes for someone to quickly draw a weapon. A normal spell is almost three seconds long. A full round spell is almost six seconds long. I'd say you're probably safe allowing people to know what sort of action someone is doing.


> If anyone can give me a better justification for waiting it out besides "use archers with a lot of spellcraft" (LOADS of them about, and coming across scads of those won't be repetitive will it?) I'd be grateful.



Realise that a fireball isn't that much better than an archer that can slam someone for 25 points of damage per arrow? Or alternatively if you want all your fighters to be trained in the ways of mage fighting, give them the spellcraft.


> My main point is this:  I think spellcasters have it very easy in d&d.  Lots of ways to get a spell off, even in dangerous circumstances (5' step is just gravy).



I think spellcasters are pretty well balanced with the other classes within combat - the problem to me is that they're far more dangerous out of combat.

Just out of curiosity - you came in from a previous edition, didn't you?


> I'm irritated that one of the last remaining ways to accomplish this, which is open to a commoner, is now gone (readying an action).  Am I just being a baby?



Yup. Spellcasters don't have it easy in combat, and every spell a wizard blows during a fight is another one he can't use to wreck the game outside of combat.


----------



## everchanging02 (Jan 31, 2005)

I must first apologize for not reading the complete thread, as it is quite long, and though I enjoy reading the ideas, it would take me until morning to finish, and, regretably, I have classes in the morning.

Here is a real-time description of the situation, taken second by second, upon the start of the round in which the wizard decides to cast the spell...

1st second:  The wizard casts the cantrip, taking perhaps the full second or just a portion of it.  The archers, if dextreous enough, note this and let loose their arrows.
2nd second:  If the archers have low hand-eye coordination, it is more likely they will realize the spell has been cast and let loose their arrows, now.  The wizard, at this point, is now preparing his spell, unless the spell requires something additional, and so he is grabbing for his material component.
3rd second:  Depending on the distance the archers are from the wizard, the arrows would probably be hitting now.  The wizard is disrupted from his acquisition of the component as an arrow strikes him, and he drops it or goes reeling at the pain, or the like.  OR the wizard gets an arrow in him while performing the somantic components, and is thereby distracted as he groans in pain.
4th second:  If the archers are rather distant from the wizard, it is more probable that the arrows would be hitting now.  The wizard has gotten his components out, or is partially through his sommantics, but is now struck by the arrow, and reels at the hit, dropping the component or ceasing his sommantics.

This is over half a round, and if the spell requires an action to cast, then he has already taken more time than he has to cast it.  If it takes a full round, then he can't have started the spell after the arrows hit.  All of the above, of course, is assuming the caster fails his Concentration check.

What I'm trying to say is that the archers cannot get their arrows off in the split-second that it takes to cast the free-action spell.  It's just not physically possible.  Therefore, their arrows do not disrupt his casting of the cantrip.  They disrupt whatever other action he does, thereafter.

Given the "I wave my hands around like I'm casting a spell" case, it is hard to say.  It is not difficult to tell that someone is doing something suspicious that might be able to be interpreted as a spell.  However, what qualifies this?

In the Player's Handbook v.3.5, it says that casting Quickened Spells (Free-Action Spells) does not incure an attack of opportunity (Pg. 144).
Also from the PH, it says you can Ready and action with the trigger of someone starting to cast a spell.  It does not go into any detail of if the person requires the knowledge of Spellcraft or whatever. (Pg. 160)

Someone on the first page took an exerpt from the SRD that stated that a readied action could only be readied for a move or standard action, and therfore disqualifies Free Actions as initiating action from Readied Actions.

Given the spell is a free action, how can you say they even notice that he is casting a spell?  Are they going to shoot at the flick of a wrist?  How do they know he isn't just pointing at something, or snapping his fingers for the heck of it?  They suddenly see this finger flipping them off, and they are puzzled at where it came from, then realize it was a spell, but note it didn't hurt them.  And, even still, whatever this minor action may be, it is not of the complexity of action that casting a spell is (as denoted by the difference between a Free Action taking up no amount of time in a Round, and a Standard Action (the typical time to cast a spell) as taking at least a couple seconds of the six-second Round).


Truthfully, it might be clever, but I would say it doesn't work.


----------



## sullivan (Jan 31, 2005)

Anax said:
			
		

> 2) A player who tries to sneak things past his GM is asking for a beat-down. The atmosphere is much better when (on the players side) players are willing to approach the GM about a desired tactic, and can expect (on the GM's side) that the GM will provide a means if the tactic isn't unreasonable.




Bah! It wasn't like he sprung it on the GM right away. You'd think that if the spell was intended at first to be used that way it'd come out ealier, but even if he did plan it out ahead, the GM simply wasn't looking far enough ahead along and (what I think is the real lesson here) broke two fundementals of custom spell design; including a metamagic function as part of a spell AND not even assigning an appropriate level after breaking the first rule.

If you can't outthink the player on the other side of the DM screen you are likely sitting on the wrong side of the DM screen, and if you take it personally instead of laughing when a player manages to outwit you then you definately are on the wrong side of the screen.

EDIT: BTW the GM -does- get to know before it affects the game. The GM gets to make a ruling, so just like countless other times a GM rules interpretation is made. Big whoop.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 31, 2005)

The lack of a free-falling object doesn't prevent someone _casting_ Feather Fall.

"You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect."

You cast Feather Fall... _then_, when it comes into effect, you make the decision as to what to target.

It's like casting Hold Person on the doppelganger who looks like a dwarf.  The spell target is 'one humanoid'.  You cast the spell; the slot is expended; you make the decision as to what to target when the spell comes into effect; the effect is resolved.

In this case, if you select the doppelganger as the target, the spell fails, because the doppelganger is not 'one humanoid'.

You can cast Feather Fall - triggering all relevant readied actions and using up the slot - and then, when the spell comes into effect, select 'you' as the target.  Since you're not a free-falling creature, the spell fails.  _But it was cast_.

-Hyp.


----------



## sullivan (Jan 31, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> You can cast Feather Fall - triggering all relevant readied actions and using up the slot - and then, when the spell comes into effect, select 'you' as the target. Since you're not a free-falling creature, the spell fails. _But it was cast_.




Actually it's a non-descrimitating area effect. So the spell doesn't fail, there just are no valid targets for it to affect. The castor cannot directly choose who/what does or does not get affected. They just choose the center of the burst. More akin to setting off a fireball in empty air.


----------



## Caliban (Jan 31, 2005)

sullivan said:
			
		

> Actually it's a non-descrimitating area effect.




Actuall, the spell is targeted effect that can affect multiple targets of your choice. 

You might want to actually read the spell.


----------



## Thanee (Jan 31, 2005)

> *Targets:* One Medium or smaller freefalling object or creature/level, no two of which may be more than 20 ft. apart




See? No mentioning of burst or area of effect there.

It's surely similar to an area effect, but it is no area effect, it's multiple selective targeting.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## sullivan (Jan 31, 2005)

Caliban said:
			
		

> Actuall, the spell is targeted effect that can affect multiple targets of your choice.
> 
> You might want to actually read the spell.




My purchasing habits you could question, but my reading skills are just fine. 

I don't feel the need to drop cash on new books, and v 3.0 it says: "Any free-falling objects or creatures in a 10-ft. radius whose weight does not total more than 300 lb./level", along with Close range. Although "burst" is not actually stated, you could almost imply it. You could however rule that it is a fixed diameter and is able to act through barriers (of some sorts).

EDIT: NM, I just saw popped up the 3.5 SRD that seems to have all those spell descriptions handy. I'll make a note to refer to those in the future.


----------



## BSF (Jan 31, 2005)

Wow, what a thread.

The spell in question was mis-leveled.  Cantrips should never be free actions.  Quickened spells cannot be interrupted with readied actions and they don't draw AOO's either.  Altamont Ravenard already quoted the relevant section from the SRD way back on the first page.  Even if I allowed quicked actions to be interrupted by readied actions, I still wouldn't have a problem with this.  I would even reward it by allowing it to work against many dumb mooks.  Why not?  It's kinda fun.  (I will taunt you a second time.)  There are plenty of ways for commoners to sometimes disrupt spells.  Grappling works fine.  I readily admit that there is a certain amount of appeal in commoner mooks hanging back trying to ready to disrupt, but it isn't realistic past a certain point.  They might try the tactic, but they will still die a quick death.  For me, the key is that the tactic will work often.  But sooner or later, it won't.  Maybe the PC draws fire but ends up with a crit instead of a normal hit.  Oops.  Maybe the sniper isn't a mook but is an arcane archer.  Sure, in that case the arcane archer would be much better off going full attack on the spellcaster.  But maybe the arcance archer is working for the BBEG and his instructions are "ready an attack on anyone that tries to interrupt my soliloquy."    The point is that this tactic is hardly foolproof.  It's a nifty idea.  

But the fact of the matter is that it doesn't work.  Quickened actions cannto be interrupted like that.  Explain to the player that both of you have been playing it wrong.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 31, 2005)

Bah, just let him do it, and hit him with about 40 arrows from hidden archers on a rooftop or something.  He'll get the message.


----------



## S'mon (Jan 31, 2005)

It seems like a legit tactic; deliberately provoking an attack on himself.  Certainly not anything for the GM to get annoyed about, as GM I'd have no problem with it.  As GM you're at liberty to rule that free actions can't be interrupted by readied actions - makes sense to me, it makes Quickened spells more powerful but that's not necessarily bad.  And as has been said, if the Readiers realise what's happening they can choose not to discharge their action.  Overall my impression is that it's a sign you're using Readied actions to much; your GMing is too predictable - if your NPCs weren't constantly Readied this situation wouldn't arise.


----------



## gfunk (Jan 31, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> It seems like a legit tactic; deliberately provoking an attack on himself. Certainly not anything for the GM to get annoyed about, as GM I'd have no problem with it. As GM you're at liberty to rule that free actions can't be interrupted by readied actions - makes sense to me, it makes Quickened spells more powerful but that's not necessarily bad. And as has been said, if the Readiers realise what's happening they can choose not to discharge their action. Overall my impression is that it's a sign you're using Readied actions to much; your GMing is too predictable - if your NPCs weren't constantly Readied this situation wouldn't arise.




An excellent summary of some of the better points that have been raised in this thread.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 31, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> To the GM that has NEVER had an archer, even once in their campaign, "ready" a shot vs. a spellcaster -- that statement pretty much tells me all I need to know. It's like saying "oh, I've never had a monster take an AOO vs. a PC" or "I've never thrown a spellcaster against a party of PCs". It seems clear to me that the game is less fun and less interesting if you remove obvious tactical ploys like "readying" a spell interrupt action, which can be very effective. "can be." Scare quotes. Given my situation.




For the reasons I explained, no archers have every thought it worthwhile, although there are a couple of situations where it might be conceivably useful. I'm astonished that you would rank this alongside "never take an AoO against a PC" or "never used a spellcaster against a party", and furthermore that you divine that my game is less fun or less interesting.

The clarity of your vision is somewhat less than you might think it is.



			
				two said:
			
		

> There are a number of related issues here. Those that say casually "oh I never bother having an archer ready a shot; the wizard just will see it and get cover and then cast a spell." That assumes a bunch of stuff, most importantly: that it's OBVIOUS when somebody is readying an action. This is not covered in the rules.




It is covered in the DMG. I don't have it to hand, but I seem to recall it being about p16-17 or thereabouts. It is quite clear (I even quoted it a couple of days ago in another thread). The DM is encouraged to use consistent descriptive language to help the players judge what is going on.

Like so much of the rules this is optional guidance which you can choose to use, or you can choose not to use. In your original post you are requesting solutions to a percieved problem. If there are solutions or information that you personally don't think are going to be useful in your circumstance you should either ignore them or politely decline, rather than denigrate other peoples playing styles.

Regards,


----------



## two (Jan 31, 2005)

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> Wow, what a thread.
> 
> The spell in question was mis-leveled.  Cantrips should never be free actions.  Quickened spells cannot be interrupted with readied actions and they don't draw AOO's either.  Altamont Ravenard already quoted the relevant section from the SRD way back on the first page.  Even if I allowed quicked actions to be interrupted by readied actions, I still wouldn't have a problem with this.  I would even reward it by allowing it to work against many dumb mooks.  Why not?  It's kinda fun.  (I will taunt you a second time.)  There are plenty of ways for commoners to sometimes disrupt spells.  Grappling works fine.  I readily admit that there is a certain amount of appeal in commoner mooks hanging back trying to ready to disrupt, but it isn't realistic past a certain point.  They might try the tactic, but they will still die a quick death.  For me, the key is that the tactic will work often.  But sooner or later, it won't.  Maybe the PC draws fire but ends up with a crit instead of a normal hit.  Oops.  Maybe the sniper isn't a mook but is an arcane archer.  Sure, in that case the arcane archer would be much better off going full attack on the spellcaster.  But maybe the arcance archer is working for the BBEG and his instructions are "ready an attack on anyone that tries to interrupt my soliloquy."    The point is that this tactic is hardly foolproof.  It's a nifty idea.
> 
> But the fact of the matter is that it doesn't work.  Quickened actions cannto be interrupted like that.  Explain to the player that both of you have been playing it wrong.




FIRST:  Confusion

Argh. Now I'm confused again.

I can accept that quickened actions can't be interrupted by readied actions.  Nor do quickened spells draw Aoo's.

That doesn't answer the question as to whether a quickened spell "triggers" a "spell interruprt readied action."

After all, casting Feather Fall IS casting a spell.  It can't be interrupted; your arrows fly with no effect.  That's irrelevant.

Unless you have a very tricky readied action, such as "I shoot 'em as soon as he casts a spell that lasts longer than 2 seconds" or something like that.  Simply "ready a shot on a spell" would be triggered by Feather Fall.  I don't see anything in the rules that contradicts this.  It's unfortunate -- because FF can't be interrupted, after all -- but there you go.  If I'm wrong please let me know.

SECOND point:  Power o'de'Cantrip

I don't think the cantrip was misleveled at all.  Except for this very obscure use, which Player X had in mind when creating the cantrip, it's totally fine.  I mean, c'mon.  It's a free action spell that has NO MECHANICAL EFFECT at all.  If Feather Fall is 1st level (and it's free action, actually, better than free action, it can be cast out of initiative count) and has a significant mechanical effect, what was I supposed to do?  Say "ok, still, your cantrip idea is still 1st level spell even though it doesn't do anything?"  No.  It's a cantrip.  And with 99.999% of the players out there, the cantrip wouldn't be overpowered in the slightest.  It would be used to start bar fights, or to punctuate diplomacy gone bad.  Unfortunately, my player is the .001%. 

Did I just therefore argue that the cantrip WAS mislevelled because of the obscure use it could be made to have (forcing a mechanical effect, by triggering readied actions)?  I did and I didn't.  If a spell is ok 99.9999% of the time it's generally considered "balanced," right?  It's not unike certain other spells too powerful for their level (silence, magic missile); we just have learned to live with them.  If so, then, why did I remove the cantrip from play?  Because I felt he "tricked" me; he didn't tell me what he was really designing the spell for.  If he had, I would have considered it more seriously.

THIRD point:  Claims of Readied Actions being useless

I play low to mid-level D&D.  Sometimes  higher (10+) but rarely.  I commented in a previous post about a high level archer doing 25 points per shot.  That's not typical at all for my campaigns at all, as I stated.

Much more common is Fighter4 archer, with PBshot, Rapid Shot, +3 mighty bow.  Maybe not even WSpec.  Doing maybe 7-10 damage per arrow shot.  Maybe less, maybe a little more.

Typically, my battles dont' have a lot of "ambush" going on, unless the PC's have scouted extensively.

A fighter4 doing a "full attack" using rapid shot is at -2 for all shots of course, and even if both arrows manage to hit, it's unlikely to kill even a wizard 4 (unless he's totally wimpy with constitution).  Much less a wizard6, which would be a more typical bad guy archer/good guy wizard level range.  Plus, the fighter archer may have to move that round simply to get into position.  SO the question often is:

1)  Should I move and shoot an arrow, possibly hurting the wizard, or move and ready an action, possibly stopping the wizard from casting a spell which can screw us royally?

2)  Should I stay put and (if I have a clear shot) full attack?  The extra attack might do more damage...

The trade off here is an extra attack (giving both attacks -2 to hit), vs. the chance of stopping the enemy wizard's spell going off, thus stopping the wizard's action cold.  Meaning, I trade -2 to 2 attacks and an extra attack for the wizard's standard action.  That's a good bargain for a mook archer -- any day of the week.    (even figuring in to-hit rolls required, concentration checks required, etc.).  It's not a given at all.  But, the archer has a shot at doing something very effective.

Now, this changes a bit when you are talking about tricked out Archers at level 9 or whatever.  They are better off probably just full attacking the wizard if the wizard is in range.  If they have to move, they are still better off moving/readying an action.  

At high levels, the archer15 is always better off just full attacking probably.  With a lucky crit, you might be able to take out the wizard in one round.  Again, if the archer has to move, the archer still should ready a shot vs. an obvious spellcaster.  The damage done by an archer15 could be in the 25-30 range, enough to force a very scary concentration check.

I'm not talking about readying "shoot" actions at levels above 10 usually.  When you want to ready something at those levels, you use the "silence" spell.  Far more effective.

In addition, to repeat, it's not always arrows.  I do grapple, use alchemist's fire, have goblins chucking spears, hand axes, throw tanglefoot bags, nets...  I don't suffer from a lack of understanding regarding how to hinder spell casters. 

I was just a little shocked by this tactic, I suppose.

And also, please:  the PC is having his fun.  He's using the FeatherFall idea once in a while to good effect.  I have not stopped him; although I did take away the cantrip.

[defensive rant]
I feel somewhat defensive at this point; I don't think I'm an ogre regards the cantrip; I don't think I'm being repetitive in the campaign regarding tactics or battles; I don't think my players object to intelligent creatures attempting to target #1 dangerous priorities in various sneaky though legal ways.
[/defensive rant]

OK.  Rant over.  Feel better now.

I guess I'll just let him use his Feather Fall tactic.  It's not a bad trade off (1st level spell for a readied action).  Now, the question is, can you scribe FeatherFall onto a scroll?  Pull out scroll of FeatherFall, read it, trigger action, drop scroll, cast spell you actually care about.  Not bad for 25 gp.  (this assumes you don't need to move that round or dont' have a special belt-o-remove-scrolls-as-free-acton).


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 31, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I just have to ask... why didn't the druid consider casting defensively? I suppose he might have put no ranks at all into concentration (in which case it serves him right) but that would have been the best choice for healing the comerade - especially when facing the possibility of an AoO from a giant!




Probably because he was near full hit points and this 100% guaranteed that he would heal his fallen ally. Casting Defensively did not.

I do not exactly remember the entire situation since it was over 3 years ago, I just remember the tactic.

I do not fall into the camp of "if a tactic is legal means it is also not exploitive".


----------



## cmanos (Jan 31, 2005)

Pretty smart.  Now just load your archers with arrows of Wizard Slaying and let loose with the readied actions.


----------



## smetzger (Jan 31, 2005)

RuminDange said:
			
		

> But it is ok for the DM to meta-game the archers always targetting the player with readied actions if he casts a spell and there is nothing he can do to avoid it?  I still say without spellcraft an NPC shouldn't know spell casting from yelling strange words and taking wierd poses etc. to draw thier fire.




Um, by the RAW spell casting is noticed as spells casting 100% of the time.


----------



## sullivan (Jan 31, 2005)

Re: Power o'de'Cantrip

Before even the issue of assigning a level you have included a metamagic within the spell. Featherfall does this for purely D&D legacy reasons (there were ways around having the spell function as it does but most likely rejected for flavour reasons). It should not be done in new spells. He wants it speeded up? Then take Quicken and burn the appropriate spell slot. Otherwise he can create a free action magical item based on the 1 action casting version of the cantrip. Call it Glove of Defiance, that will do it at will with a free action finger motion. Pricy? Oh hell ya, but true style doesn't come cheap. 

Re: When to Ready

Good rule of thumb is to take the sure shot, doubly so if they have more than one attack from a full attach. If I Readied the mages could bob and weave, duck and cover, pull out a magic item and roast me, etc. I'd have to be damn sure the mage will cast to ready on him. Especially when you are covering with a ranged weapon instead of face-to-face with melee since he do a full move and cast.

Heck, I don't even know if he has spell left to cast unless I was giving my GM knowledge to an NPC that shouldn't have it...which happens but to be fair shouldn't happen regularly. So it has to be a very senario specific situation where I'd Ready over taking the shot. If I was that worried about the mage casting i'd have someone with Dispel Magic sitting on him instead. Unless I'm doing some serious damage or he has a low Concentration (unlikely) odds are probably much better of a decent mage counterspelling.

Personally if I was a playing a spell caster at your table within a few sessions I'd be chuckling and screwing with your tactics best I could. [EDIT: And not even bothering with Featherfall, plenty of other room]. Karinsdad might think tactics such as intentionally drawing an AoO is in bad taste, but I've done it (or tried to) a number of times. Usually to damage soak to cover for another partymember. Of course it's a calculated risk as Combat Reflexes does exist....

Anyway to use a seasonal analogy, just like in football you almost always take the points you can instead of throwing them away for points you might get.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 31, 2005)

BardStephenFox said:
			
		

> Quickened spells cannot be interrupted with readied actions and they don't draw AOO's either




Actually, this is incorrect.

Quickened spells can be interrupted (interrupted, not necessarily disrupted) with readied actions. Read the appropriate readied action sections. Any action can be readied against and the readied action always goes before the completion of the triggering action.

However, quickened spells can still be cast even if the caster takes damage. The only thing the Concentration section states is that a Concentration roll is required to still get a 1 action (or greater) spell off if you take damage. Since quickened spells are not 1 action spells, this rule does not apply and hence, you do not have to roll a concentration check when damaged while casting a Quickened spell.

The rules also do not state exactly what happens if a quickened spell does gets interrupted. For example, what happens if someone readies an action to grapple the spellcaster if he casts a spell and he casts a quickened spell? The grapple occurs before the end of quickened spell, but can the grapple disrupt the spell? Possibly, possibly not. The rules are not clear. The "if an action wouldn't normally provoke an AoO, you need not make a Concentration check to avoid being distracted" rule implies not. The problem with this sentence is that it starts out with the phrase "in general". That means that that is the normal rule, but there can be exceptions.

What happens if the spell caster goes unconscious?

What happens if the spell caster is taking continuous damage?

What happens if the spell caster is grappled?


The 3.0 FAQ states that a quickened spell can be counterspelled normally. This indicates that anything that would disrupt a quickened spell (except normal damage which is already covered) can disrupt the spell.

This includes going unconscious, taking continuous damage, and grappling.

The 3.5 FAQ does not discuss it.


Both interpretations are pretty much valid according to the rules and the FAQ. So, it is up to individual DM adjudication.


----------



## drnuncheon (Jan 31, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> That assumes a bunch of stuff, most importantly:  that it's OBVIOUS when somebody is readying an action.




I'd say a readied action for a bow would involve having the arrow nocked, the bow drawn, and the arrow pointed at the potential target(s). So, yeah, pretty obvious.  Otherwise you're not likely to be fast enough to interrupt whatever it is your target is going to do.



> This is not covered in the rules. Do you require the archer to be staring directly at the wizard? What if the archer wants to NOT stare at the wizard but still ready an action?




Then I'd make him make a Spot check to see if he notices the wizard triggering the action, since he's deliberately shifting his attention elsewhere.  Or a Bluff check to be able to watch the wizard whiole seeming not to..



> What if the archer simply has an unknown initiative count (to the wizard); what's the difference between a delaying archer staring at a wizard and an archer with a readied action staring at the wizard?




One has an arrow nocked, drawn, aimed and ready to fire, the other doesn't.



> If anyone can give me a better justification for waiting it out besides "use archers with a lot of spellcraft" (LOADS of them about, and coming across scads of those won't be repetitive will it?) I'd be grateful.




Well, there's always 'the last time we tried this he faked us out' or 'we've heard about his fake-out tactics, so Bjorn fires after the first spell and Karl fires on the second.'

Or the archer could be a sniper.  If the wizard doesn't know he's there, he's not going to waste the spell on the fake-out.

J


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 31, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> Retrieve a components (free action)



Technically, he's not retrieving a spell component.  He's retrieving a stored item.  D&D is a results-oriented system; it allows the free retrieval of spell components as part of casting a spell (because otherwise playing a spellcaster would suck), but it doesn't allow the free retrieval of stored items just because they're similar (or even identical) to spell components.



> Drop it (free action)
> Cast Feather Fall on dropping component (free action)



One of the most prominent rules governing free actions is that the DM can limit the number of them a player takes in a round.

Personally, I think the player's tactic is valid and not at all metagaming.  If a wizard is aware that opponents often wait to attack him until he's in the midst of spellcasting, it's entirely IC that he would develop a counter to the tactic.  (I also think that the "moving to provoke AoOs so I can cast safely" tactic is completely valid.  I could easily justify the tactic in a writeup from an IC perspective.)

That said, there are potential counters to the counter, most of which have been mentioned.  I'll add one I haven't seen yet (though I haven't finished the thread): Sense Motive.  The wizard is obviously doing something hinky; it's reasonable that his intention to "spell feint" might be read in his body language.  I'd personally allow the archers a Sense Motive + BAB roll to catch that.  Since it's not a bluff on the wizard's part (he _is_ casting a spell), I'd just use something similar to the "Hunch" rule, with a DC of 25 (or even 30) instead of 20 to reflect the lack of time involved.


----------



## sullivan (Jan 31, 2005)

> What happens if the spell caster is grappled?






			
				SRD said:
			
		

> If the spell is one that you can cast while grappling, you must make a Concentration check (DC 20 + spell level) or lose the spell.




No exceptions there for Quickened spells. So yup disruption is on if you are casting any possible spell (no more than 1 action long, no Somatic components, Material components in hand).



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> What happens if the spell caster is taking continuous damage?






			
				SRD said:
			
		

> If you are taking continuous damage half the damage is considered to take place while you are casting a spell. You must make a Concentration check (DC 10 + 1/2 the damage that the continuous source last dealt + the level of the spell you’re casting). If the last damage dealt was the last damage that the effect could deal then the damage is over, and it does not distract you.




Now as for the first paragraph of that section:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Injury: If while trying to cast a spell you take damage, you must make a Concentration check (DC 10 + points of damage taken + the level of the spell you’re casting). If you fail the check, you lose the spell without effect. The interrupting event strikes during spellcasting if it comes between when you start and when you complete a spell (for a spell with a casting time of 1 full round or more) or if it comes in response to your casting the spell (such as an attack of opportunity provoked by the spell or a contingent attack, such as a readied action).




I think you may have misread this section? That seems very clear to me that damage that comes in response to a readied action affects all spells [that are less than 1 full round]. No execptions for Quickened.

EDIT: Fixed up format problems caused by copy/paste.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 31, 2005)

sullivan said:
			
		

> I think you may have misread this section? That seems very clear to me that damage that comes in response to a readied action affects all spells [that are less than 1 full round]. No execptions for Quickened.




Actually, I carefully read the appropriate sections. The sections you may have missed reading or misread are:

"2 Such as during the casting of a spell with a casting time of 1 round or more, or the execution of an activity that takes more than a single full-round action (such as Disable Device). Also, damage stemming from an attack of opportunity or readied attack made in response to the spell being cast (for spells with a casting time of 1 action) or the action being taken (for activities requiring no more than a full-round action)."

This indicates that this column of the damage taken (i.e. "DC 10 + damage dealt: Damaged during the action. 2") with a casting time LESS than 1 action does not apply. If the DC for the appropriate situation is not listed, how can you use it?

Also:

"In general, if an action wouldn't normally provoke an attack of opportunity, you need not make a Concentration check to avoid being distracted."

Quickened spells do not provoke an attack of opportunity.


You cannot just outright state that when several rules conflict or are unclear, your interpretation as to which rule overrides is the correct one.

PS. I agree with your adjudication, I just also see that it is not the only correct adjudication.


----------



## sullivan (Jan 31, 2005)

Now this is really delving into Rules Lawyery, but the leading "Such as " implies a possibily incomplete list. So that is at best inconclusive (and thus poorly crafted). It simply cannot hold the weight of the section I mentioned that provides no such possible way out (save for error of forgetting about Quickened spells and Featherfall, which frankly your reference seems more likely to contain). I would call that at best leaving an opening Quickened spells not being disrupted, but no proof for.

I know you have already brought up the fact that "In general" also solves any apparent conflict, and this time quite explicitly. It also implies that there ARE times the exception occurs (Climbing is one, isn't it? Not sure on that). Furthermore it wouldn't make sense to list all exceptions since that is a small entry in the skills list and there is a whole other section of the book to talk about spells and Concentration checks, and another section to talk about what provokes an AoO. Once again leaves the door open there, but allows it to be shut elsewhere in an area where it is more specific.

Also conceptionally to have Grapple (as well as rain, riding a horse, and other senarios) be able to disrupt a Quickened spell but not a well timed boot-to-the-head flies fully in the face of reason. Not that rules can't, but it is another pebble on the heap. 

I'd say maybe + maybe << explicit + consistancy. In fact you are relying on an unlikely error being made (and not errataed in the last 5 years). That's right up there with arguing the meaning of "is".


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 31, 2005)

sullivan said:
			
		

> Now this is really delving into Rules Lawyery, but the leading "Such as " implies a possibily incomplete list. So that is at best inconclusive (and thus poorly crafted). It simply cannot hold the weight of the section I mentioned that provides no such possible way out (save for error of forgetting about Quickened spells and Featherfall, which frankly your reference seems more likely to contain). I would call that at best leaving an opening Quickened spells not being disrupted, but no proof for.




Except that the phrase "Such as" was not specified in that sentence, but rather the sentence before the relevant one (I only included both sentences for completeness):

"Also, damage stemming from an attack of opportunity or readied attack made in response to the spell being cast (for spells with a casting time of 1 action) or the action being taken (for activities requiring no more than a full-round action)"

This IS very explicit. The DC applies for damage from a readied action in response to the spell being cast for spells with a casting time of one action. Period. There was no need to call out "spells with a casting time of 1 action" if it applied to all spells. The "Such as" sentence explicitly calls out full round spells. The second sentence explicitly calls out 1 action spells. They could have saved space and clarity if they meant all spells by not explicitly calling out spells with casting times of 1 round or more, and spells with casting times of 1 action. But they did. They segregated them out and said that for the three types of spells, this DC applies to two of them.

This is doubly reinforced by the rule "In general, if an action wouldn't normally provoke an attack of opportunity, you need not make a Concentration check to avoid being distracted."

You are on thin ice here. Both of these rules indicate that damage from a readied attack do not apply to Quickened spells with regard to distracting the caster (and disrupting the spell).


With regard to rules lawyering, this is a rules forum. It is imperative to at least attempt to be thorough about rules here.


----------



## sullivan (Jan 31, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Except that the phrase "Such as" was not specified in that sentence, but rather the sentence before the relevant one (I only included both sentences for completeness):




Different sentence, same paragraph, same list, same implied possibility of incompleteness.



> "Also, damage stemming from an attack of opportunity or readied attack made in response to the spell being cast (for spells with a casting time of 1 action) or the action being taken (for activities requiring no more than a full-round action)"
> 
> This IS very explicit. The DC applies for damage from a readied action in response to the spell being cast for spells with a casting time of one action. Period. There was no need to call out "spells with a casting time of 1 action" if it applied to all spells.




It's VERY explicitness can also support the possibility of Quickness being disrupted. Why? Because there is a need for naming 1 action casting time to ensure that you couldn't mistakenly assume that Quickened applied to the first part of that "OR" conjunctive, the AoO.



> The "Such as" sentence explicitly calls out full round spells. The second sentence explicitly calls out 1 action spells. They could have saved space and clarity if they meant all spells by not explicitly calling out spells with casting times of 1 round or more, and spells with casting times of 1 action. But they did. They segregated them out and said that for the three types of spells, this DC applies to two of them.




Total brevity is not where the SRD is coming from. There are other examples of "such as" sprinkled through out the combat section that are not complete. Further they might have wanted to highlight that 1 round spells don't provoke AoO.



> This is doubly reinforced by the rule "In general, if an action wouldn't normally provoke an attack of opportunity, you need not make a Concentration check to avoid being distracted."




It does inforce in negative way that this is not proof against Quicken not being disrupted, but not a positive proof sense outside of they didn't get around to listing a big list in an section that is not intended to delve into the full specifics of spell casting senarios. Further a Quickened spell casting does meet the criteria of _or the action being taken (for activities requiring no more than a full-round action)._ albeit in a slightly oblique way, and once again it makes sense that it go in there because it is removed from the OR conjuctive that it's connection to would be incorrect.



> You are on thin ice here. Both of these rules indicate that damage from a readied attack do not apply to Quickened spells with regard to distracting the caster (and disrupting the spell).




EDIT: Grammer-slammer-bammered this paragraph.
"Thin ice" says you. "You be under that ice" says I!  (my smilie face selection button is broken, i REALLY need a pirate smilie here) Once again the exapmles you provide only allow the possibility that Quicken may not be disruptable by readied attacks, but do not provide proof positive. While I provide a reference that leaves no such possibilities for Quickened not being disrupted, save for the possibility of a blatant error by the author that has somehow not been corrected over the years....which finds us back at where my last post concluded.

I'll set aside the logic of consistancy arguement since it has a weak weighting at the level we are dealing at and, though I am sure I understand your point that there are places where you could say there is a possibility that there is no way to disrupt a Quickened spell by a simple readied damage dealing attack, I still feel overwhelmingly secure that you have not provided any entries, such that I have, that are explicit proof positive.



> With regard to rules lawyering, this is a rules forum. It is imperative to at least attempt to be thorough about rules here.




Yes, which is why I have been willing to go there. Just making sure we are talking at the same level.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 31, 2005)

It would appear you are using multiple archers (plural) in these encounters.

It seems logical that one archer readies an action to interupt the first spell being cast by an opponant that round, and the second readies an action to interupt the second spell being cast by an opponant that round.  It isn't with the specific intention of thwarting this cantrip/featherfall tactic...it's in preparation for facing off against multiple casters.

An iconic adventuring party will have two magic using characters in it (a wizard and a cleric, for example).  Rather than letting one of those two casters get off free from an attempt to interupt their casting, I would think that your archers would coordinate in this way.

As a side effect, it would result in your cantrip/featherfall using caster getting hit by two arrows...one to interupt his first spell, the other to interupt the second spell.  And, it is perfectly logical that your archers would ready their actions that way, though they probably didn't expect to be targeting the same individual with both arrows when they decided on the tactic.

It would end the use of this cantrip/featherfall tactic, AND be a logical use of readied actions by your archer NPCs.  Give it a shot.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 31, 2005)

sullivan said:
			
		

> It's VERY explicitness can also support the possibility of Quickness being disrupted. Why? Because there is a need for naming 1 action casting time to ensure that you couldn't mistakenly assume that Quickened applied to the first part of that "OR" conjunctive, the AoO.




Now, that is really stretching. In "or" sentences, any of them are applicable. In the case we are talking about, the only portions of the sentence that is relative is:

"damage stemming from readied attack made in response to the spell being cast for spells with a casting time of 1 action"



			
				sullivan said:
			
		

> I'll set aside the logic of consistancy arguement since it has a weak weighting at the level we are dealing at and, though I am sure I understand your point that there are places where you could say there is a possibility that there is no way to disrupt a Quickened spell by a simple readied damage dealing attack, I still feel overwhelmingly secure that you have not provided any entries, such that I have, that are explicit proof positive.




We have 4 bits of information here:

1) That they were explicit about distractions for spells with a casting time of one round or more and for spells with a casting time of 1 action, but were not for swift casting time. It could be an omission, but it would be simpler to just state all spells if that was what they wanted.

2) Actions that do not provoke AoOs also do not require Concentration rolls for distraction as a general rule.

3) Actions that require your full attention can be distracted, but actions that do not require your full attention do not.

"You must make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention. Such actions include casting a spell, concentrating on an active spell, directing a spell, using a spell-like ability, or using a skill that would provoke an attack of opportunity."

4) Every single free action listed in the book states Attack of Opportunity: No.

Cast a quickened spell
Cease concentration on a spell
Drop an item
Drop to the floor
Prepare spell components to cast a spell
Speak

"Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally."


Now personally, I do not consider swift and free actions to require your full attention. Much of the text here indicates the opposite of your conclusion.


It is apparent that the designers consider free actions to not take your full attention.

It is also apparent that the designers considered standard actions and full rounds actions as the type of "attentive effort" actions that you can often be distracted on.


However, I agree it is not crystal clear. Depending on which rules you focus on determines how you interpret it.

You chose one rule "spells can be disrupted" as the important rule. Another DM can chose others rule "while engaged in some action that requires your full attention" and "if an action wouldn't normally provoke an attack of opportunity, you need not make a Concentration check to avoid being distracted".

That doesn't make your rule proof positive and the other rules not. You might consider your rule the specific rule. Another DM might consider your rule the general rule and the "full attention" rule as the specific rule (i.e. spells that do not fall under the full attention rule do not fall under the distraction possibility of the general spell rule).

But, BOTH rules are written in the rules and neither can be ignored when discussing rules.


----------



## MeiRen (Jan 31, 2005)

If its a free action, it probably doesn't take much effort, just a moment of concentration.  Maybe the archers can't tell he's castinga spell - after all, he didn't actually do anything that they can see.  So, they don't fire their arrows, cuz they don't see him doing any "magic junk".  Voila.  

Alternatively, just let him get away with it and increase the power of the monsters accordingly.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 31, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 4) Every single free action listed in the book states Attack of Opportunity: No.




See Rapid Reload.

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 31, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> See Rapid Reload.




Sorry, I should have said in the SRD.


----------



## sullivan (Jan 31, 2005)

Karinsdad, up until now you have been holding up the ambigousness of an incomplete list in a section of the rules, as being ambigousness in the rules as a whole. This is a section in a chapter that does not deal directly with the topic in detail, chiefly because that is the role of a seperate chapter and section. A separate chapter and section I have pointed out where it is explicit. For the rules to be seen as ambigous in the whole you must make the choice, a choice every DM is free to make, to ignore portions of the rules. But stop trying to pass off your choice as something other than Rule Zero.

Go through the Combat section doing a Search for "such as". You'll find incomplete lists. Lists that could be shorter or left out entirely, with only the short naming of the grouping of situation or factors. But they chose to include common examples in incomplete lists. They then expand in detail on those lists of factors and situations in the section that deals directly with it.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> See Rapid Reload.
> 
> -Hyp.




Now we see you depart onto something much, much wierder. Akin to tea reading. Reading interpretations into what a free action means by inaccurate characterisations of groupings by using circular logic. That whole of #4 has gotten much, much worse problems than what Hypersmurf points out. The problem of grappling disrupting Quickened spells because it explicitly states that all spells [EDIT:that] can even be started [EDIT:during grappling] can be disrupted by grappling.

Also if the Quickened spells require something less than full spell concentration i'd like to see where you can cast a Quickened spell in the middle of maintaining a spell or in the middle of casting.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 31, 2005)

sullivan said:
			
		

> Karinsdad, up until now you have been holding up the ambigousness of an incomplete list in a section of the rules, as being ambigousness in the rules as a whole. This is a section in a chapter that does not deal directly with the topic in detail, chiefly because that is the role of a seperate chapter and section. A separate chapter and section I have pointed out where it is explicit. For the rules to be seen as ambigous in the whole you must make the choice, a choice every DM is free to make, to ignore portions of the rules. But stop trying to pass off your choice as something other than Rule Zero.




Incorrect.

The three quotes I made were from the Concentration skill itself in discussion of characters being distracted. Only one of those three was from the list. But, the Concentration skill section IS the rules just as much as the Magic Overview section in the book on this topic.


Try again.

If two sections concerning the same rules have a conflict or an ambiguity, it is not the way sullivan interprets it as the ONLY way.


If YOUR interpretation is the only one, then every DM should force PCs and NPCs to roll a Concentration check whenever they cast Feather Fall while falling because falling is minimally a vigorous (and often unexpected) motion for the caster.

Do you enforce THAT in your game?


DM: Oh too bad. Although your wizard purposely studied that Feather Fall spell, you missed your concentration roll for casting while falling, so you fall the 50 feet and die. Better luck next time.


----------



## sullivan (Jan 31, 2005)

.... and to add insult to injury on your half-baked theory, a cross post quote from the Cure Minor thread:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> ... Taking move actions doesn’t risk further injury, but performing any standard action (or any other action the DM deems strenuous, including some free actions such as casting a *quickened spell*) deals 1 point of damage after the completion of the act. ...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 31, 2005)

What's your point with that, Sullivan?

It has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 31, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Sorry, I should have said in the SRD.




From the SRD: "The time required for you to reload your chosen type of crossbow is reduced to a free action (for a hand or light crossbow) or a move action (for a heavy crossbow). Reloading a crossbow still provokes an attack of opportunity."

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 31, 2005)

sullivan said:
			
		

> Also if the Quickened spells require something less than full spell concentration i'd like to see where you can cast a Quickened spell in the middle of maintaining a spell or in the middle of casting.




You can cast a Quickened spell in the middle of maintaining a spell or in the middle of casting a spell.

"You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally."

"Casting a quickened spell is a free action. You can perform another action, even casting another spell, in the same round as you cast a quickened spell."

Free actions are taken DURING other actions. Nothing prevents that other action from being spell casting. So, this allows it. Feel free to post a rule that disallows it.

Strike two???


----------



## sullivan (Jan 31, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> What's your point with that, Sullivan?
> 
> It has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.




This, and some other free actions do actually require effort.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 31, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> From the SRD: "The time required for you to reload your chosen type of crossbow is reduced to a free action (for a hand or light crossbow) or a move action (for a heavy crossbow). Reloading a crossbow still provokes an attack of opportunity."




I guess you missed it when I said "listed". I was talking about the list.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 31, 2005)

sullivan said:
			
		

> This, and some other free actions do actually require effort.




Effort, but not full attention.

Walking 10 feet with a 50 pound backback on your back takes effort too, but not full attention either. This also does not cause you to fall unconscious while disabled, so effort is not the issue.

Strike three???


----------



## sullivan (Jan 31, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> You can cast a Quickened spell in the middle of maintaining a spell or in the middle of casting a spell.
> 
> "You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally."
> 
> ...




Against you? Perhaps since you have obviously slipped off your rocker. I said while casting, which is something completely different than "in the same round".


----------



## sullivan (Jan 31, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Effort, but not full attention.
> 
> Walking 10 feet with a 50 pound backback on your back takes effort too, but not full attention either. This also does not cause you to fall unconscious while disabled, so effort is not the issue.
> 
> Strike three???




There are indeed different sources of stess. What source would it come from for a Quickened spell. Hmmm. I guess it must be something pretty intense since, you know, just a momment of it could cause you to drop dead. It likely doesn't have much to do with heavy backpacks or walking.

Yup, you've completely dropped off your rocker. It would help explain why you seem to have missed the first few strikes against you, but hey who's counting? Oh ya, you. Anyway, let's go back to Strike One K.D.:



> Incorrect.
> 
> The three quotes I made were from the Concentration skill itself in discussion of characters being distracted. Only one of those three was from the list. But, the Concentration skill section IS the rules just as much as the Magic Overview section in the book on this topic.
> 
> ...




You are quoting from a *summary* in a section that deals with selecting and understanding a skill that is used for a number of different catagories of actions, on specialization of a sub-type is the outcome from what we want to know about. So doesn't it make sense to go to the section where the root cause of going to the skill lies? A much longer section specific to spells that goes into much more detail about the different senarios that create or can create a possible disruption?




> If two sections concerning the same rules have a conflict or an ambiguity, it is not the way sullivan interprets it as the ONLY way.




But there is no ambiguity between the sections. There is only ambiguity in the section you choose. When put both together as a whole the puzzle is solved. Both can be held true for one, and only one choice (barring an error on the authors part).




> If YOUR interpretation is the only one, then every DM should force PCs and NPCs to roll a Concentration check whenever they cast Feather Fall while falling because falling is minimally a vigorous (and often unexpected) motion for the caster.
> 
> Do you enforce THAT in your game?
> 
> DM: Oh too bad. Although your wizard purposely studied that Feather Fall spell, you missed your concentration roll for casting while falling, so you fall the 50 feet and die. Better luck next time.




If they try to perform sky diving by reaching or nearing terminal velocity and then timing the casting so they float the last 60 feat, thus being in the equivalent of a 200 mph. Well yes I suppose that should incure a Con check since it is the equivalent to weather, even without percepitaton or dust specified in the SRD. However short of that, well we  are getting into subject rather than the objective area of the rules, aren't we? Perhaps we need to get back to the objective rules that we were discussing.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 31, 2005)

sullivan said:
			
		

> Against you? Perhaps since you have obviously slipped off your rocker. I said while casting, which is something completely different than "in the same round".




You have yet to prove this. I have two quotes (free actions are performed DURING other actions and a quickened spell is a free action) that allow it.

You have yet to post a rule that disallows it.

If anyone is slipping off their rocker, it is you.

This is a rules forum, not an opinion fest.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jan 31, 2005)

sullivan said:
			
		

> If they try to perform sky diving by reaching or nearing terminal velocity and then timing the casting so they float the last 60 feat, thus being in the equivalent of a 200 mph. Well yes I suppose that should incure a Con check since it is the equivalent to weather, even without percepitaton or dust specified in the SRD. However short of that, well we  are getting into subject rather than the objective area of the rules, aren't we? Perhaps we need to get back to the objective rules that we were discussing.




So, you are now claiming that only by reaching terminal velocity can a falling character be in vigorous motion?

What about casting a Quickened spell while jumping? Is jumping vigorous motion? If jumping, why not falling?

How about while swimming or when in a river current??? Is a river current vigorous motion, but not falling???

Do you need concentration checks to cast Quickened spells while falling, jumping, or being pulled along in a current???

Where do you draw the line that some motion is vigorous and others are not? And post a rule to support this while you are at it.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Feb 1, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> I guess I'll just let him use his Feather Fall tactic.  It's not a bad trade off (1st level spell for a readied action).  Now, the question is, can you scribe FeatherFall onto a scroll?  Pull out scroll of FeatherFall, read it, trigger action, drop scroll, cast spell you actually care about.  Not bad for 25 gp.  (this assumes you don't need to move that round or dont' have a special belt-o-remove-scrolls-as-free-acton).



This is the best thing you've said all thread, and now let me help you a bit.

A scroll with a free-action spell on it is STILL a standard action to use. To quote the rules:  "Activating a spell completion item (a scroll - Saeviomagy) is a standard action and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does."

So - he HAS to use his first level slots for this.

He might want to consider getting a hat of disguise and looking like he's wearing platemail instead though.


----------



## Caliban (Feb 1, 2005)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> This is the best thing you've said all thread, and now let me help you a bit.
> 
> A scroll with a free-action spell on it is STILL a standard action to use. To quote the rules: "Activating a spell completion item (a scroll - Saeviomagy) is a standard action and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does."
> 
> ...




However, this is contradicted by the rule on page 213 of the DMG, *USING ITEMS*, second paragraph: "Activating a magic item is a standard action unless the item description indicates otherwise.  However, the casting time of a spell is the time required to activate the same power in an item, whether it's a scroll, a wand, or a pair of boots, unless the item description specifically states otherwise."

The last official ruling I saw was that this superceded the general activation times listed for each of the ways to activate an item (Spell Completion, Spell Trigger, Command Word, and Use Activated), except for Use Activated.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 1, 2005)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> A scroll with a free-action spell on it is STILL a standard action to use. To quote the rules:  "Activating a spell completion item (a scroll - Saeviomagy) is a standard action and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does."




"Activating a magic item is a standard action unless the item description indicates otherwise. However, the casting time of a spell is the time required to activate the same power in an item, regardless of the type of magic item, unless the item description specifically states otherwise."

The casting time of Feather Fall is a free action.  Thus, a free action is the time required to activate Feather Fall in an item, _regardless of the type of magic item_, unless the item description specifically states otherwise.

The description of the spell completion activation method is not the item description.

EDIT - or, more succinctly, 'What Caliban said'.

-Hyp.


----------



## sullivan (Feb 1, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So, you are now claiming that only by reaching terminal velocity can a falling character be in vigorous motion?




To spell it out clearer for you, since this deals with the section of the SRD you are currently boycotting, it could subjectively be ruled to fall under "Violent Weather". No rain or sand, but without appropriate gear that's some nasty wind that can accompish the same thing. So is the Con check strickly mandated for terminal velocity? Nope, this is an area of subjectivity. You could also count it as Violent or Vigorous Motion since winds at that speed (if you've ever experienced something close to it) tends to really smack you around, depending on what you are wearing. It's not the speed itself, it's the oscilating air pressure around you tossing you about. Being able to control your tumble would help a lot in that matter. Once again calling for a subjective DM interpretation of the environment.

Of course this has nothing to do with whether it is a Quickened spell or not.



> What about casting a Quickened spell while jumping? Is jumping vigorous motion? If jumping, why not falling?
> 
> How about while swimming or when in a river current??? Is a river current vigorous motion, but not falling???
> 
> ...




LOL, you are now entering the pathetic. Attempting again to draw away from what I guess you are beginning to realize is a lost cause for you. To try switch from objective rules to subjective interpretations of environments. Don't worry though, it's obvious that you couldn't bring yourself to admit it so I won't bother ask you to fess up. That brings us to....



> You have yet to prove this. I have two quotes (free actions are performed DURING other actions and a quickened spell is a free action) that allow it.
> 
> You have yet to post a rule that disallows it.
> 
> ...




LOL. I don't need to post it. You've brought nothing of merit forward yet. Given that last time even when I did give you concrete evidence (frankly with a lot more curtesy than you are earning right now) you simply chose to ignore it. You've used up your free ride of making an outlandish claim with nothing to back it up. So now the burden is not on me, or anyone else, until you can actually come up with something that resembles a solid reason -for- Quicken metamagic is explicitly excluded from the requirement that you must concentrate on one spell to the exclusion of other spells during the casting period to cast a given spell.

So how about then we do things different this time by you starting out by bringing a coherent logical arguement forward. Not just selections of vague sentences that prove nothing about the subject at hand. 

Not that it is all that pertanent to your original babbling. But seeing how you have lost that one I'll let you move onto another.

I'll give you, say 48 hours. So in a couple days I'll check back and see what you have. That'll should give you plenty of time....if there is actually something to this claim of yours. Of course I expect you to give an empty answer here quite quickly that you already have proved it. You haven't of course, but I don't need to get into that now. I'll save that laugh for a couple days if you decide to endulge me such.


----------



## two (Feb 1, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> "Activating a magic item is a standard action unless the item description indicates otherwise. However, the casting time of a spell is the time required to activate the same power in an item, regardless of the type of magic item, unless the item description specifically states otherwise."
> 
> The casting time of Feather Fall is a free action.  Thus, a free action is the time required to activate Feather Fall in an item, _regardless of the type of magic item_, unless the item description specifically states otherwise.
> 
> ...




Oh good lord.

I'll say it now, and maintain it until I die:  D&D just has TOO MANY RULES.

Ok.   Done.

I suppose the smart thing to do is buy a Wand of Feather Fall (750 GP) and get 50 free "spell interrupt triggers" plus, well, the ability to not die when going off a cliff.  

Hm... wand of Feather Fall.  Who would of thunk?


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 1, 2005)

Actually, Sullivan, you and KarinsDad are about two inches away from being suspended; both of you please go reread the rules up at the top of every forum. You guys have broken the "no insults" rule multiple times in this thread. Being rude, snarky or insulting to other people isn't okay.  You're welcome to disagree with other peoples' opinions or ideas, but levelling criticism on a personal level isn't going to be tolerated. 

If this is somehow a problem, feel free to email me.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 1, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> I suppose the smart thing to do is buy a Wand of Feather Fall (750 GP) and get 50 free "spell interrupt triggers" plus, well, the ability to not die when going off a cliff.




Well, it can be argued that a _wand_ of Feather Fall _does_ take a standard action.

The casting time of the spell is the time required to activate the power, _unless the item description states otherwise_.

The item description for wands states that activating a wand is a standard action, or the casting time of the spell _if it's longer_.  "A free action" is not longer, therefore activating a wand of Feather Fall is, arguably, a standard action...

-Hyp.


----------



## Squire James (Feb 1, 2005)

Wow, this one's almost become a paladin thread!

I think it is reasonable for a DM to "take back" a ruling that he later finds to be (in his opinion) incorrect.  DM's cannot always out-think their players, and they should not be penalized for that fact.

The DM apparently accepted the cantrip with the understanding that it had no mechanical effect, and that making it a swift action would cause no harm.  Later on, he discovered that it DID have a mechanical effect... it triggered readied actions.  The DM's initial assessment of the value of the cantrip was proven wrong, and thus the DM reassessed the cantrip.  I believe he was well within his rights.

"Congratulations, my clever player, you found a loophole in the rules!  As a reward, I will let the events where you exploited the loophole stand and I'll give you a few bonus XP for being clever.  However, I am closing this loophole in the future and am banning/nerfing that cantrip.  The God of Magic has decided that cantrips should never be usable as swift actions."

I've had to deal with this sort of player before... he would come up with a long series of small bends in the rules that individually don't appear to be a big deal (and are usually quite reasonable).  Taken together, he wrecks the campaign in a totally unreasonable fashion.  He was basically a Deck of Many Things with legs!


----------



## Silveras (Feb 1, 2005)

sullivan said:
			
		

> Re: Power o'de'Cantrip
> 
> Before even the issue of assigning a level you have included a metamagic within the spell. Featherfall does this for purely D&D legacy reasons (there were ways around having the spell function as it does but most likely rejected for flavour reasons). It should not be done in new spells. He wants it speeded up? Then take Quicken and burn the appropriate spell slot. Otherwise he can create a free action magical item based on the 1 action casting version of the cantrip. Call it Glove of Defiance, that will do it at will with a free action finger motion. Pricy? Oh hell ya, but true style doesn't come cheap.




FYI: Contrary to your assertion that "It should not be done in new spells", each of the last few WotC published books do just that. 

They have descriptions of the Swift and Immediate actions at the start of the spells chapter. In these headers, Quicken Spell is revised to convert a spell to a casting time of 1 Swift Action. 

A Swift Action is "like a free action", but only 1 allowed per round. An Immediate Action is similar, except that you can even use that _on someone else's turn_. These actions are now part of the core SRD rules (see below). Several new spells have casting times of 1 Swift Action or 1 Immediate Action. Although the quotes below are specific to manifesting Psionics, the same language is used the new books with regard to spells. 



			
				3.5 SRD said:
			
		

> *New Action Types*
> *Swift Action*: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. However, you can perform only a single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action any time you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve psionics or the activation of psionic items; many characters (especially those who don’t use psionics) never have an opportunity to take a swift action.
> Manifesting a quickened power is a swift action. In addition, manifesting any power with a casting time of 1 swift action is a swift action.
> Manifesting a power with a manifesting time of 1 swift action does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
> *Immediate Action*: Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time—even if it’s not your turn. Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn. You cannot use another immediate action or a swift action until after your next turn if you have used an immediate action when it is not currently your turn (effectively, using an immediate action before your turn is equivalent to using your swift action for the coming turn). You also cannot use an immediate action if you are currently flat-footed.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 1, 2005)

sullivan said:
			
		

> LOL, you are now entering the pathetic. Attempting again to draw away from what I guess you are beginning to realize is a lost cause for you. To try switch from objective rules to subjective interpretations of environments. Don't worry though, it's obvious that you couldn't bring yourself to admit it so I won't bother ask you to fess up. That brings us to....




You avoided the question.



			
				sullivan said:
			
		

> LOL. I don't need to post it. You've brought nothing of merit forward yet. Given that last time even when I did give you concrete evidence (frankly with a lot more curtesy than you are earning right now) you simply chose to ignore it. You've used up your free ride of making an outlandish claim with nothing to back it up. So now the burden is not on me, or anyone else, until you can actually come up with something that resembles a solid reason -for- Quicken metamagic is explicitly excluded from the requirement that you must concentrate on one spell to the exclusion of other spells during the casting period to cast a given spell.
> 
> So how about then we do things different this time by you starting out by bringing a coherent logical arguement forward. Not just selections of vague sentences that prove nothing about the subject at hand.
> 
> ...




Your insults notwithstanding, you did not disprove what I posted and again avoided the question.

Nobody else came to the defense of your position either.

The reason is because there are no rules that indicate that you cannot cast a quickened spell during the action of casting another spell. The rules instead indicate that you can and I have already posted them.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Feb 1, 2005)

Actually, I don't think it would work. I, at least, rule that the trigger for a readied action must be specific, so if you are readying to attack in order to disrupt a spell, that won't trigger on a wand. Using a wand is not casting a spell. (Mechanically, that's a good thing too, since wands are not interruptable by damage).

So, if the player switched to a wand--and you let wands of feather fall be free action by taking a different interpretation of the rules than Hypersmurf--it would be useful for stopping catapult stones or screwing up the aim of giant-hurled boulders (which do not have a flat trajectory and would therefore be significantly off if they didn't descend as expected), but not for triggering readied actions to disrupt spellcasting.



			
				two said:
			
		

> I suppose the smart thing to do is buy a Wand of Feather Fall (750 GP) and get 50 free "spell interrupt triggers" plus, well, the ability to not die when going off a cliff.
> 
> Hm... wand of Feather Fall.  Who would of thunk?


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 1, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> You avoided the question.
> 
> Your insults notwithstanding, you did not disprove what I posted and again avoided the question.
> 
> Nobody else came to the defense of your position either.




Okay, this is not stopping the argument, and I have no interest in micromanaging this thread. KD, I shot you an email -- I think the best thing is for neither of you to address comments to the other. There's no going to be a "winner" here, and neither of you is going to convince the other, so please just let it lie.

Thanks to those people who are having the conversation _without_ turning it into an argument.


----------



## two (Feb 1, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Well, it can be argued that a _wand_ of Feather Fall _does_ take a standard action.
> 
> The casting time of the spell is the time required to activate the power, _unless the item description states otherwise_.
> 
> ...




At this point, I calmly run away from the Player's Handbook -- screaming....

Will it never end??????  ARRGHHHHHH!!!


----------



## Darmanicus (Feb 1, 2005)

My head hurts!


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 1, 2005)

You know what this calls for? More rules!


----------



## diaglo (Feb 1, 2005)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> You know what this calls for? More rules!





Bad Kitty...  

i sent this thread to the gnome sorc in our group. he has feather fall.

i'm waiting for the DM to rip into us.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 1, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> You avoided the question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




There may not be an explicit prohibition on casting a quickened spell after you've already been working on casting another spell, but I think most people would find doing so a very peculiar interpretation of the rules to the point of twisted rules-lawyering nonsense.

For one thing, casting a spell requires concentration and anything that breaks that causes the spell to be lost. I would certainly say that starting to concentrate on another spell, even one that is quickened, would entail breaking the concentration on the first spell.

Not all free actions should be available to do during all types of other actions and casting a quickened spell (or swift spell using the newer book terminology) during the casting of another spell is one of them.

When I'm DMing (and I suspect I'm well within the majority here), I require the quickened spell to come either before or after the other spell being cast in the same round.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 1, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> For one thing, casting a spell requires concentration and anything that breaks that causes the spell to be lost. I would certainly say that starting to concentrate on another spell, even one that is quickened, would entail breaking the concentration on the first spell.
> 
> Not all free actions should be available to do during all types of other actions and casting a quickened spell (or swift spell using the newer book terminology) during the casting of another spell is one of them.
> 
> When I'm DMing (and I suspect I'm well within the majority here), I require the quickened spell to come either before or after the other spell being cast in the same round.




I do not disagree.

I was merely pointing out that the rules allow for it.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 1, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I do not disagree.
> 
> I was merely pointing out that the rules allow for it.




Certainly a strong argument for not being excessively pedantic about rules and for relying on reasonable DM interpretation.


----------



## MeiRen (Feb 2, 2005)

Squire James said:
			
		

> Wow, this one's almost become a paladin thread!
> 
> I think it is reasonable for a DM to "take back" a ruling that he later finds to be (in his opinion) incorrect.  DM's cannot always out-think their players, and they should not be penalized for that fact.
> 
> ...




Seconded.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Feb 2, 2005)

During my years as a Car Wars player, we allowed every exploit under the sun.  Once.  You got to bend the rules however you could manage it the one time, then we close the loophole.  So, one time, I had a car covered with armored car batteries.  Everyone else congratulated me on my victory, and then armored car batteries were never allowed in our games again.

You can use the "Car Wars Loophole" in D&D, too.  Let 'em use it once, in-game.  If you find out later it doesn't work that way, or just that you don't *want* it to work that way, and don't let it happen again.  Why stress?  Presumably, most of us are here to have fun.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Feb 2, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> Bad Kitty...
> 
> i sent this thread to the gnome sorc in our group. he has feather fall.
> 
> i'm waiting for the DM to rip into us.




Your DM might allow the tactic (though my rules interpretation agrees that a readies action can't interrupt a free action) ... but he's also smart enough to ready counterspell actions with spellcrafters who have a decent spellcraft check.  Your tactic might work once ...


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 2, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Certainly a strong argument for not being excessively pedantic about rules and for relying on reasonable DM interpretation.




No doubt.

But then again, this is a rules forum.


----------



## Tatsukun (Feb 2, 2005)

OK, I admit that I read only the first few pages of this thread, then skimmed. But it seems to me that a quickened spell (or a normal spell, with a casting time of 'free action' or 'swift action') would not draw attacks of opportunity. 

Am I just lacking sleep and totally wrong? 

Have fun

 -Tatsu


----------



## Caliban (Feb 2, 2005)

Tatsukun said:
			
		

> OK, I admit that I read only the first few pages of this thread, then skimmed. But it seems to me that a quickened spell (or a normal spell, with a casting time of 'free action' or 'swift action') would not draw attacks of opportunity.
> 
> Am I just lacking sleep and totally wrong?
> 
> ...




And if the issue was provoking an AoO,  that would be relevent.  However, that's not what's under discussion.


----------



## Tatsukun (Feb 2, 2005)

Caliban said:
			
		

> And if the issue was provoking an AoO,  that would be relevent.  However, that's not what's under discussion.




Isn't it? The first post is about bad guys readying actions to attack a mage if he starts to cast a spell, said mage casting a 'free action' spell to draw those AoO's and then casting a second spell in safety. 

The assumptions were…

1) Bad guys can't tell the difference without spellcraft (I agree)
2) Most bad guys don't have 'combat reflexes' (I agree)
3) A spell that can be cast as a free action draws AoO

I disagree with the 3rd assumption, so it seems that this tactic doesn't work. 

Did this thread wander off topic? 

 -Tatsu


----------



## Hypersmurf (Feb 2, 2005)

Tatsukun said:
			
		

> The first post is about bad guys readying actions to attack a mage if he starts to cast a spell...




That's right.



> ... said mage casting a 'free action' spell to draw those AoO's...




What AoOs?

You're the only person talking about AoOs!

-Hyp.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 2, 2005)

To make what Hyp said a little clearer, the archers are readying to attack if the spellcaster casts a spell. The spellcaster casts a swift spell. Does this trigger the archers' readied attacks? If so, do the arrows force him to make a Concentration check or lose the swift spell if they hit? If the arrows hit and he goes on to cast another spell, does he have still to make a Concentration check to cast it?


----------



## Tatsukun (Feb 2, 2005)

Oh, right, readied action =/= AoO.

I know this

DOH!

My bad. 

More sleep, less coffee

 -T


----------



## diaglo (Feb 2, 2005)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Your DM might allow the tactic...




SWeet..

i know what i'm doing for next session.

it involves shapechange... (the other broken thing not fixxed in this edition)....


----------



## JoeBlank (Feb 2, 2005)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Your DM might allow the tactic (though my rules interpretation agrees that a readies action can't interrupt a free action) ... but he's also smart enough to ready counterspell actions with spellcrafters who have a decent spellcraft check. Your tactic might work once ...




Even if this would work in Olgar's game, my gnome sorc is not about to try it. He is far better off keeping a low profile and getting attacked as little as possible, he is not about to throw up a target and attempt to take the hits from the readied actions.


----------



## Morbog of Ghetto D (Feb 2, 2005)

*Opinions of an Orc*

1.  Wow,  how stupid .
2.  This is why players should be discouraged from creating silliness  like this
3.   If it doenst add to the game ....banish it.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Feb 2, 2005)

I think the player was clever.  A couple of problems with this tactic though:

1) Waste first level spell slots.  
Not too big of deal but he only has 6 and he probably cast more than six spells in combat every day and he won't be able to cast mage armor or other low level utility spells with out using up high level slots.

2) He won't be able to cast a quickened spell during a round in which he uses this trick.  Not to big a deal at level 9 but a big deal at higher levels.


----------



## Kilroy (Feb 3, 2005)

I think that if the player was bothered enough to come up with this tactic, the problem is probably with the way you run the game.  Readying actions to make a player useless every other fight isn't something I would enjoy.

Out of curiosity, do you also make sure that all the other players can't do anything enery other fight?  If not, it sounds pretty unfair.

As for the metagameyness, it doesn't sound any more metagamey than every mook with a bow in the entire world knowing just the perfect way to kill a wizard.

In short:  Stop doing that.


----------



## two (Feb 3, 2005)

*You wonder why I was being defensive in the previous post*



			
				Kilroy said:
			
		

> I think that if the player was bothered enough to come up with this tactic, the problem is probably with the way you run the game.  Readying actions to make a player useless every other fight isn't something I would enjoy.
> 
> Out of curiosity, do you also make sure that all the other players can't do anything enery other fight?  If not, it sounds pretty unfair.
> 
> ...




Oh brother.  Like, thanks dude, for reading my last 5 or so responses.  This is the kind of junk I was trying to avoid in advance.

I went OUT OF MY WAY TO MAKE CLEAR IN PREVIOUS POSTS THAT I DON'T READY ACTIONS TO MAKE SPELLCASTERS "USELESS" NOR TO STOP ANYONE'S FUN.  I DON'T WANT TO STOP SPELLCASTING I DO HOWEVER WANT BAD GUYS TO DO INTELLIGENT THINGS WHEN LOOKING DOWN THE BARREL OF A MAGICAL HOWITZER.

All caps because, well, it seems to be necessary to get through some preconceived notions.

OK?  GOT IT?  GOT IT?  GOOD.

I use readied actions when appropriate.  As I was at pains to explain (and find myself explaining again and again), if an intelligent NPC with means to use a readied action (with a bow, spear, other object) sees an OBVIOUS PC wizard about to open up a can of whoop-azz, about 50% of the time he will "ready" an action to try to mess up the wizard's spell while hurting him.  i.e. using a "readied action."  (That's if they can't grapple or throw a net or just decide to charge in, or full attack (with rapid shot or whatever)).  This seems perfeclty common-sensical to me; I know it's a higher percentage than most GM's, but nobody yet has convinced me it's a ridiculous bad tactic for low-middle D&D.  Because, honestly, it's not.  And it doesn't require the bad guys to have spellcraft, previous knoweldge of the PC's, any of that.  

As stated, the Wizard faces a "readied" action on average every other fight.  It doesn't always stop him from casting; but it does complicated things (will he move, then cast something, cast and suck it up, cast feather fall and be safe, move and hope the guy misses and cast, etc. etc.etc., pull out a wand and zap it ...?)

Nobody in my campaign is complaining that enemies "ready actions" too much or that it's boring, or unbelievable, or tedious.  On the contrary, they seem to be happy that their enemies are not video-game automatons who just "see enemy, charge in, attack, die."  That's boring for everyone, GM and Players -- beleive me.

I brought the issue up originally because of Player X's cantrip tactic and wanted opinions/comments.  

Please don't play the armchair psychoanalyst and attempt to judge my campaign given that you know nothing of it; nor to you know the personality of Player X; nor my player's general level of fun with the way I run my game (high).  Nor the fact that I'm having a good time with it as well -- with some caveats.  See post #1.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 3, 2005)

Deep breaths, gang. I'm not surprised that Two needed to get that out and said, but let's continue the thread without an antagonistic tone.

Thanks.


----------



## RigaMortus (Feb 3, 2005)

Where else can we really go with this?  There are several very good ways to deal with this that people have suggested.  You are the DM, so imploy them.  I personally like the idea about having 1 archer ready his action for one spell, and the other archer ready for the second spell.

Then again, you ARE the DM.  It's not like you have to accounce the NPC's thoughts.  Whether they fire on the first or second spell being cast is irrelevant.  You control that and do not need to explain why or how the NPC archers (that you control) readied their actions.  Sure, hints like "the archers have their bows trained on you, but have no fired yet" are great hints and even add to the immersion.

At 200+ posts, what's the problem at this point?


----------



## Pbartender (Feb 3, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> I brought the issue up originally because of Player X's cantrip tactic and wanted opinions/comments.




Simply put then... He can't do it nearly as easily as either you or he seem to think.  Both of you need to open up your Rulebooks and read the relevant rules a lot more carefully.  

Reread this entire thread from the beginning, and you'll find that all the specific rules and how they work have been pointed out for you in detail several pages ago.  If it makes you feel better, no one else seemed to have noticed either.

Really, there's no point in berating Two, here.  He's got the answers he was looking for, even if none of us realize it yet.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Feb 3, 2005)

Yeah, yeah...yet ANOTHER person's opinions.

*Metagaming:* Pretty much for the reasons others have expressed above with respect to feints and faking, I don't think any is going on here.

*HOWEVER:* Although this is a slippery slope for reasons I'll get into below, I think it's pretty undeniable that the caster in question *IS/WAS* trying to fake out the archers.  Thus it might be reasoned that it already deserves a feint check or some such.  I'd probably rule it differently than was suggested above, but that's largely immaterial.  Assuming the spell was already put into effect, seems like allowing this to go off as a "free action feint" is entirely reasonable...thus the spell in question (or Feather Fall) could be used as a quicker sort of feint.

DRAWBACKS:  The "slippery slope" is that Feinting in game terms is a specific action with a specific effect.  Ruling otherwise creates problems since there are many other instances we IRL would probably classify as a type of feint, such as:  A fighter with multiple attacks uses the first for something that provokes an AOO, an unarmed strike for instance (and to make it tactically sound, let's say this is an offhand).  The second is used for a grapple check...something that might be more important ultimately and vulnerable to disruption.  And there is the difficulty in ruling what exactly is the player's intent, such as a quickened magic missile before the higher-level nuking for instance.

*INTERRUPTING QUICKENED ACTIONS:* For similar reasons, it also seems dangerous to disallow readied responses ("I shoot as soon as he starts speaking") to free actions, regardless of whether that would technically stop the quickened spell.

Ultimately, I think the best way to handle it is, as someone previously suggested, to have (some) Archers ready in response to "The first spell cast that takes longer than a swift action".  The more intelligent and wizard-experienced types might be prepared for such tactics.  The less magic-experienced or intelligent (i.e. ogres) might be fooled by such feinting tricks.


----------



## two (Feb 3, 2005)

*confused again*



			
				Pbartender said:
			
		

> Simply put then... He can't do it nearly as easily as either you or he seem to think.  Both of you need to open up your Rulebooks and read the relevant rules a lot more carefully.
> 
> Reread this entire thread from the beginning, and you'll find that all the specific rules and how they work have been pointed out for you in detail several pages ago.  If it makes you feel better, no one else seemed to have noticed either.
> 
> Really, there's no point in berating Two, here.  He's got the answers he was looking for, even if none of us realize it yet.




I have read the entire thread.  I now believe the rules are as follows.  Please DO correct me if I'm (still) mistaken.

1)  Casting a free action spell is casting a spell which will trigger mundane "attempt to interrupt if they cast a spell" readied actions.
2)  Casting Feather Fall without a valid target causes the spell to fail, however, the spell was still cast (triggering the readied action) -- pace Hypersmurf.
3)  A free action cantrip is either a bad idea (because it allows triggering of readied actions) or it's a good use of a custom cantrip (tactical spellcasting feint).  It such a specialized use, that perhaps a cantrip is OK.  I don't know.
4)  Free action spells can't be interrupted, or maybe they can.  I don't really care; this is beside the point.  Free action spells ARE spells, they are cast, thus they trigger the readied action -- that's the point. 

BY THE RULES, I believe Player X is strictly legit.  When he had the cantrip and used it to get readied actions to trigger -- that was legal.  When he now uses Feather Fall to get readied action to trigger -- that was and still is legal.

Are you saying that there is something Player X is doing that's directly going against an unambiguous rule?

Aside from the struct rules question, lots of suggestions have been made:

1)  Let the player have his fun.
2)  Take away the cantrip, let him use Feather Fall.
3)  Stop being a dork and using so many readied actions.
4)  Grapple, use nets, tanglefoot bags, etc. more and use readied actions less.
5)  Use continual damage stuff more (fire, etc.) and readied actions less.
6)  Stop ruining everyone's fun.
7)  Use meta-gaming information with NPC's to get around the free action spell, i.e. "i ready an action on a non-free action spell" or "I ready an action to smack the wizard with my spear  on the second spell he casts this round," etc.

I am implementing 2), 4), 5).  Player X seems to be having 1) so I'm not worried about it.  6) is a non issue, as is 3).  7) I just can't justify.  I just can't see typical mooks being able to distinguish between a free action spell and a "normal" spell, even if they had somebody inform them about the party's tactics (very, very uncommon).  As a player, I'd be pretty annoyed if my GM pulled out a readied action such as "I shoot the wizard after he attempt to fake me out with a free action spell thus interrupting his second spell".  That just stinks of gorilla-ish GM "me GM you PC me get around your tactic with brute force."  I won't do that.

So, now that I beleive it's legal, and I've removed the cantrip, I'll allow Player X to burn his 1st level spells once in a while as "readied action" feints.  My next project:  stacking a few battles one-after-another in the same day, hopefully creating a serious consequence for depleting 1st level spells willy-nilly.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 3, 2005)

Sounds like an excellent way of handling it.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 3, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> Ultimately, I think the best way to handle it is, as someone previously suggested, to have (some) Archers ready in response to "The first spell cast that takes longer than a swift action".  The more intelligent and wizard-experienced types might be prepared for such tactics.  The less magic-experienced or intelligent (i.e. ogres) might be fooled by such feinting tricks.




Actually, I thought the concept of "more intelligent and wizard-experienced types might be prepared for such tactics" idea as pretty lame the first time I read it.

This is the first I have heard of this tactic. And from reading everyone else, I would suspect that this is the first time most (if not all) people here have heard of this tactic.

So if hundreds of people playing the game are unaware of this new tactic, why would the NPCs be aware of it?

Answer: They wouldn't be aware of it.

The main reason they wouldn't be aware of it is because it was an exploitation of the rules. The player came up with a clever idea of how to take advantage of a loophole in the rules. So, I do not think it is reasonable to have the NPCs "metagame" a solution to a problem caused by a player "metagaming" a solution. Instead, the loophole should just be removed in two's game.

At least, that is my suggestiion. Don't react to the loophole, get rid of it. IMO.

As two stated:

"7) I just can't justify. I just can't see typical mooks being able to distinguish between a free action spell and a "normal" spell, even if they had somebody inform them about the party's tactics (very, very uncommon)."


----------



## robberbaron (Feb 3, 2005)

If the archers couldn't see the spellcaster doing anything except moving his lips (which could be anything) then how could that trigger their readied action?
A Free Action could easily be quick enough that they might not even notice his lips moving.

Give the archers (or whoever) something nasty to have readied. Taking a handful of dice damage every time might curb his enthusiasm for giving you the finger.

Smart role-play deserves reward though, sometimes, the reward is more pain.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Feb 3, 2005)

> Actually, I thought the concept of "more intelligent and wizard-experienced types might be prepared for such tactics" idea as pretty lame the first time I read it.



 You must admit, however, that regardless of whatever experience you may have in roleplaying games YOU are NOT a person who has devoted YEARS of study to combat in a magical world.  A warrior in a D&D has.  And likely has hundreds (if not more) of years of background 'lore' to draw from in training to be a warrior.  Yet you find it unpalatable that they (that is, such people were they to exist) might have developed tricks that you might not have heard of?

Or perhaps you are one of those people who claim they could come up with even half of the actual, real-life medieval siege and warfare tricks merely by pretending to be a knight in shining armor for a little while?

Meh, sorry if that came out a bit negative.  In my opinion, if it's a successful tactic, chances are that someone will discover it at some point.  Despite the fact that we seem to assume that adventurers are actually considerably less intelligent than ourselves.  As for:







> I just can't justify. I just can't see typical mooks being able to distinguish between a free action spell and a "normal" spell, even if they had somebody inform them about the party's tactics (very, very uncommon).



 It doesn't actually have to be something that's that complicated in PRACTICE.  A round is six seconds...that's a considerable amount of time for action and reaction.  What's the actual difference in time between a free-action spell and a standard action spell, anyhow?  Typical mook thinks "Count one-one thousand...if still casting let go."

We, as DMs and players, are trying to APPROXIMATE expertise and experience on the part of the characters and foes.  I'm sorry, but I just can't see that as metagaming.


----------



## two (Feb 3, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> You must admit, however, that regardless of whatever experience you may have in roleplaying games YOU are NOT a person who has devoted YEARS of study to combat in a magical world.  A warrior in a D&D has.  And likely has hundreds (if not more) of years of background 'lore' to draw from in training to be a warrior.  Yet you find it unpalatable that they (that is, such people were they to exist) might have developed tricks that you might not have heard of?
> 
> Or perhaps you are one of those people who claim they could come up with even half of the actual, real-life medieval siege and warfare tricks merely by pretending to be a knight in shining armor for a little while?
> 
> ...




Well, in D&D there isn't much explicit difference between Feather Fall and a vocal-only spell, or a spell that's been metamagiced to be vocal-only (at least, not by a sorcerer).

I don't like this sort of meta-thinking because it requires warriors to have more magical savvy that seems likely.  Would a goblin dart-thrower know anything about human "magical feints?"  What about that bandit over there, or the town guard?  Possibly -- just barely possible.  But it's such a stretch, I don't feel comfortable doing it.

Now, a re-occurring villain; yes.  He will tell his mooks exactly what the party is capable of.  That's fine.  But that's only one battle out of 20, if that.

Plus, it's very tricky.  If you start readying very specific actions "let loose on the 2nd spell" or "let loose on the non-verbal only spell" you are asking to lose your action entirely and not do anything that round.  What if the wizard doesn't, in fact, feint?  The 2nd spell readied action is lost.  The second readied action construction might require a spot check to see the wizard fumbling around in his component bag, and woe is you if they are eschewing components.  What if the wizard flaps his arms while casting Feather Fall?  Won't that trigger the shot unless the archers realized the Wizard if faking a real spell and just is casting Feather Fall, etc. I just don't want to get into such horrible mindless what-if's. 

For me, I'm just taking the easy way out.  99% of enemies don't know the party's tactics well enough (or have sufficient magical savvy if they do) to make a complex readied action worthwhile.  Done.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Feb 3, 2005)

Fair enough.

Just two minor notes/semi-reiterations/further plugs:
A) Completely campaign and setting-dependant, but I just think, once again, that it makes for poorly thought-out situations where you have dedicated warriors that are utterly oblivious and un-equipped to deal with the dangers of magic.  Combat and combat styles EVOLVE.  Over long periods of time.  From an historical perspective, consider the relative number of cultures and people that came up with backbent swords (saber, scimitar, katana) versus the number that developed forward bent ones (khopesh, some other exotics).  Even if an individual warrior is completely ignorant of the physics and effects of each, there ARE physical reasons and effects to each.  I'd think combat styles and effects would evolve with respect to magic as well, even amongst goblins.

Chances are, too, if you've read a bit even in this day and age that you've heard of a famous tactic or two.  "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes." 

B)  Regarding:


> Plus, it's very tricky. If you start readying very specific actions "let loose on the 2nd spell" or "let loose on the non-verbal only spell" you are asking to lose your action entirely and not do anything that round. What if the wizard doesn't, in fact, feint?



 From a tactical perspective, I'd think that trying in advance to disrupt the non-swift spell, if any, will end up with the one you want being disrupted.  Even where the "feint" isn't really a feint, returning to the quickened magic missile example.

Anyways, big kudos to you Two.  You seem to have maintained well-reasoned and impartial opinions throughout this all.


----------



## two (Feb 3, 2005)

*beyond the pale?*



			
				Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> Fair enough.
> 
> Just two minor notes/semi-reiterations/further plugs:
> A) Completely campaign and setting-dependant, but I just think, once again, that it makes for poorly thought-out situations where you have dedicated warriors that are utterly oblivious and un-equipped to deal with the dangers of magic.  Combat and combat styles EVOLVE.  Over long periods of time.  From an historical perspective, consider the relative number of cultures and people that came up with backbent swords (saber, scimitar, katana) versus the number that developed forward bent ones (khopesh, some other exotics).  Even if an individual warrior is completely ignorant of the physics and effects of each, there ARE physical reasons and effects to each.  I'd think combat styles and effects would evolve with respect to magic as well, even amongst goblins.
> ...





What's this?  A compliment?  Beyond the pale,dude.  I'm reporting you.

In all seriousness, thanks.

We are in substantial agreement regarding evolving combat tactics in a world (D&D) where magic is an everyday occurance.  Warriors and fighters would train to combat magic in effective ways; ditto archers and spear-chuckers and dart-dinkers and club-bashers and the rest of them.

It's part of why I feel comfortable using "readied" actions in the first place.  It's one of the best low-level "anyone can do it" ways to stop a wizard in his tracks.  Barring beating his brains out with a blunt object.  I was a little surprised to learn that other GM's don't (seem to?) use readied actions as much.  To each their own.  Game on, people.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Feb 3, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The main reason they wouldn't be aware of it is because it was an exploitation of the rules. The player came up with a clever idea of how to take advantage of a loophole in the rules. So, I do not think it is reasonable to have the NPCs "metagame" a solution to a problem caused by a player "metagaming" a solution. Instead, the loophole should just be removed in two's game.




Another explanation is that I would not have bothered with this tactic even if I thought of it (and perhaps others are in this camp as well).  If I am lowish level, the spell slot is too precious to waste.  If I am higher level, I have plenty of other means to accomplish the same thing.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 4, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> You must admit, however, that regardless of whatever experience you may have in roleplaying games YOU are NOT a person who has devoted YEARS of study to combat in a magical world.  A warrior in a D&D has.  And likely has hundreds (if not more) of years of background 'lore' to draw from in training to be a warrior.  Yet you find it unpalatable that they (that is, such people were they to exist) might have developed tricks that you might not have heard of?




I think you misunderstood why I thought it was lame.

A player came up with a clever idea. He tricked his DM into letting him do it, probably because he knew he was exploiting the rules.

Another gamer states "Let him do it, but ready the archers on the SECOND spell".

Now, examine this statement closely. Not only is a normal readied action something that might not trigger, but now we are adding in a level of complexity where it is even MORE rare that a second spell will be cast and trigger the ready action.

So although on the surface this suggestion is also within the rules as doable, no real warrior (as you stated, that is, such people were they to exist) in their right mind would EVER do it just because it will have him not fire his arrow at all 99+% of the time.

Not only that, but the warrior would not know if the swift first spell was being used to protect a second spell or fireball quickly.


This opens up a big rock, paper, scissors can of worms between the DM and the player.

Does the DM play his warriors as knowledgeable of this obscure tactic? Does the player throw a Quickened Fireball every once in a while to fool the DM? Does the DM, knowing that it is a Quickened Fireball pretend that his archers did NOT ready on the second spell this time?

It becomes an arms race between the player and the DM (this is why I think this ready on the second spell suggestion is lame).


Better to just avoid these type of (relatively stupid) issues before they start.

We all know this tactic was legal. Some people think it was clever, others think it was an exploitation. Since the original poster thought it was an exploitation, my suggestion to him is to make this tactic illegal so that the rock, paper, scissors problem doesn't occur.

He is the DM, he should take charge whenever he views a tactic as abusive.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Feb 4, 2005)

Ok, that's a fair argument as to how and why the player's actions might have been "lame."  However, what I was responding to there was this statement (and subsequent follow-ups):


> Actually, I thought the concept of "more intelligent and wizard-experienced types might be prepared for such tactics" idea as pretty lame the first time I read it.



 Which is to say when I speak about "this tactic" -I- am referring to the cantrip's IC and in game use (as well as consider in relation to metagaming) as opposed to the player's tricking the DM to let it slide.  Which, if intentional on the player's part -yes- is "lame".  But let's not confuse the two definitions of "this tactic," shall we?


----------



## Pbartender (Feb 4, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> I have read the entire thread.  I now believe the rules are as follows.  Please DO correct me if I'm (still) mistaken...




It all sounds good to me.  An excellent solution all around.

Thinking about it, here's what I do when I run into an 'innovative' moment in game.

"Could somebody look up that rule for me, please?  Thank you."
*THINK*
"For tonight, I'm ruling it this way...  [INSERT IMPROMPTU RULING HERE]  ...Don't let me forget to ask about it on the Message Boards this week."
The next week, before the game begins, I very clearly announce to everyone the final ruling on the previous scenario.

The important thing is to take the time to carefully muddle through the rules, before you make a final decision on the rule.  Let the players know you need time to think about it.  Make a fair ruling, but if all else is equal, rule in favor of the players having fun.  Once you've made a decision, stick to it and be consistant.

It looks like you came up with just that solution in the end...  Good Job!     

Another thing I find helpful is...  Whenever a player comes up with a kooky tactic or rules interpretation, I make it very clear to him, "Just remember, if you can do this, so can the BAd Guys.  Are sure you wnat to do it this way?"     

Half the time, that alone makes them think twice.


----------



## CapnZapp (Feb 4, 2005)

I think the major problem in D&D 3E is the simplistic notion that spells take no time to actually cast, and therefore only if you ready an action to interrupt spellcasting do you have a chance of actually disrupting the spellcasting attempt. 

Not only does it remind me more of Magic the Gathering and Baldur's Gate than other pen-and-paper rpgs (this shouldn't be read as a compliment), but:

If the rules worked more like other fantasy games in that spellcasters should fear getting shot at while casting spells, the game could avoid a lot of artificial situations, such as the one discussed in this thread.

Casting a spell does require a standard action already in the current rules, which is the better half of a round. Let's say this action consumes 3.5 seconds. But as combat is strictly sequential there is no room for normal natural enemy action from the time the spellcaster starts to cast the spell, and... wait... two... three... now! he's finished casting the spell and it actually goes off.

Any enemy fighters (or archers, or whatever) must use readied actions to hope to accomplish what they often have good reasons to hope for: avoiding being roasted to a crisp. *This means two things*, of which the second is central to this discussion:
1) they can't fight effectively: they need to sacrifice a normal round of combat, and risk looking very stupid indeed if the wizard decides to do something else. This is a choice most people find decidedly unfun (remember, it's not only the NPCs who find spell-disrupting very frustrating...)
2) specific knowledge about spellcasting is necessary to do something about spellcasters, and therefore such knowledge is encouraged, which doesn't fit very well with the notion magic is mysterious and largely unknown. 

As regards to 2) I fully understand those DMs who think that even pretty primitive opponents should have come to respect and fear those adventuring wizards, and thus they use the means available to them to try to neutralize such a dangerous threat. If the enemies are led by a civilized leader with at least average intelligence, the chance of them setting up specific strategies to counter such a death-on-legs should be even greater.

The solution, I think, is to abandon the D&D notion of how spells are cast, and instead balance (read "boost") wizards with the fact it takes some small but measurable time to cast spells. 

Yes, they become vulnerable to the normal behaviour of enemy brutes (i.e. trying to get in as many full attacks as possible before you go down), but that's exactly what's needed. Then and only then is the burden of magical knowledge lifted from the kobolds, orcs, and trolls out there; so they don't need to resort to sophisticated tactics just to harass the spellcasters.

Please note I'm not advocating making the life for spellcasters impossible: after all, the desired mechanisms is already in the game: the Concentration check and/or Quicken Spell. 

Most spellcasters already max out their Concentration ranks, so no loss there. 

And of course Quicken spell should work intuitively: that is, it's use should be non-interruptible. (If you play a Wizard, and you now think "Ok, then I'll prepare all my spells as Quickened", then I can only say: please, go ahead - you've effectively sacrificed eight class levels for the privilege of never having your spells interrupted, so I'm cool.)

Wizards and other primary spellcasters should probably get a moderate boost to compensate for the fact they now need to take the combat situation into account. (Yes, that means taking cover, avoiding melee monsters, withdrawing if suddenly exposed to enemy fire etc instead of as before just wading in with contemptous disregard of the fools who try to oppose him...) 

But exactly what compensation to give is the subject for another thread than this, although I myself am leaning toward giving them more general survivability (i.e. better hit dice)

Zapp

Please note: this is *purely opinion*, and not a comment on specific rules and their interpretation. Specifically, I'm not saying anything about how the rules work as written (not in this post anyway), I'm only presenting what underlying causes to the thread's issues I've identified, and which solutions I would prefer myself.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 4, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> Which is to say when I speak about "this tactic" -I- am referring to the cantrip's IC and in game use (as well as consider in relation to metagaming) as opposed to the player's tricking the DM to let it slide.  Which, if intentional on the player's part -yes- is "lame".  But let's not confuse the two definitions of "this tactic," shall we?




How many times in your game have you readied an attack for "the second spell" from a caster?

Why didn't you do it?

Answer: Because you did not want to totally throw away your action. Same for "real fighters" (if they existed) in the game.

They would not want to waste their time. The counter tactic is totally lame because the trigger conditions for it would almost never come up in a game.


I tell you what. Let's set up a mock combat. You get 3 same level archers all readying their missiles for the second spell of my Wizard every single round, and my Wizard will either come over and stab each of them to death with his dagger (taking a boatload of rounds), or maybe just throw a fireball at them each round until they die.


----------



## Aesmael (Feb 4, 2005)

That would be foolish. If the wizard must not be allowed to get off any spells, though, it would be less foolish for two to ready for one spell and one to ready the other. Still would not stop you stabbing them to death.

Will I regret posting to this thread? *shrug*


----------



## Darmanicus (Feb 4, 2005)

I've read a load of this thread and I'm in agreeance with those who've stated "why bother with the readied action? Just use yer full round of attacks".

I've got one thing to add to that full round of attacks............poison!!!  

Should be enough to ruin any wizards day.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Feb 4, 2005)

Darmanicus said:
			
		

> I've read a load of this thread and I'm in agreeance with those who've stated "why bother with the readied action? Just use yer full round of attacks".




Certainly at middling or higher levels giving up 3, 4, or even 5 arrows is not usually a good trade for 1 arrow that might force a Concentration check the Wizard is likely to succeed at.

Readying works reasonably well at low levels, or if there are lots of mooks around.


----------



## two (Feb 4, 2005)

*Definately*



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Certainly at middling or higher levels giving up 3, 4, or even 5 arrows is not usually a good trade for 1 arrow that might force a Concentration check the Wizard is likely to succeed at.
> 
> Readying works reasonably well at low levels, or if there are lots of mooks around.




I agree in part.  At levels, say, 10+, if you want to stop a spellcaster dead in his tracks, you can simply "ready" a "silence'" spell (to be cast when the enemy spellcaster starts to cast).  (or read it from a scroll, or zap a wand of it).  This stops nearly all spellcasting without a roll/save/SR/anything.  Period.  Unless the enemy spellcaster knows what's coming up, or is casting a silenced spell just coincidentally, it's a wonderful way to stop even a level 20 wizard.  At least for one round.  Next round, they might very well cast a silenced whatever (if they have one).  Still, you have gained a round. 

*thinking* a cohort with a wand of silence whose job is to silence (obvious) spellcasting opponents would be a nice addition to any party.   *thinking*

"Readying" is also useful at high levels when you can't DO a full attack.  If you must move to get the enemy into range, or just to see them, you can only shoot once anyway.  Might as well make it a readied action.  You aren't missing out on anything, and you might, just might, stop a spell in addition to doing damage.

The only other exception I can think of is the "huge damage 1 shot" archer.   Using appropriate bane arrows and magical bows, smite capabiliteis if they work at range for the class in question, other one-shot buffs, etc. if you can get a single arrow to do 30+ damage, that will beat the concentration check of most high level wizards.  That's probably worth it (4 attacks , 3 hitting, each doing 15-20, or 1 very accurate arrow doing 30+ and interrupting spells?).  Most people would probably still do a full attack.  But it makes sense if the archer in question can pile a bunch of bonuses/special abilities onto 1 shot, which he isn't able to do with 4 shots.

That's probably it.  Pretty rare at high levels.

Poison is a good idea, however.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Feb 4, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> How many times in your game have you readied an attack for "the second spell" from a caster?



No, but then that's never been the tactic (or rather counter-tactic) I've been talking about either.  What I HAVE been talking about is readying to interrupt the first 'non-swift-action spell' (eg "Count one second and THEN fire").


----------



## Storyteller01 (Feb 4, 2005)

Haven't read the whole thread yet...

Neat trick. The mage's equivalent of a combat bluff!! 

I'd have to agree with targon. Have your archers vary their actions, to account for multiple spells. Not too much of a jump from targeting two or more spellcasters (niether cast their spells exactly at the same time). Just have the incident in question be 'archer 1 will fire at the first spell attempt, archer two will fire at the second spell attempt' etc.

Another tactic (if he uses Quickened spells): Since Quickened spell does add a +4 to the level, you can claim that the feat rolls Silent Spell and Still Spell together. It won't set off a spell because the caster isn't giving clues that one is cast (I play that you don't have to reach for your components to use them. They just have to be on hand).

Question for everyone: I know using bluff is a standard action, but what would keep a mage from doing the same trick with the Bluff skill (I'm casting a quickened spell...PSYCH!!)?


----------



## Storyteller01 (Feb 4, 2005)

Given your statement that this is a magic heavy world, maybe this is plausible.

Arrows with silence. Keep the readied action. Make it an area effect, so a save isn't possible. Watch him take extra damage as he remove the arrow he porvoked so he can cast his next spell...on the next round.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 4, 2005)

Shadowdweller said:
			
		

> No, but then that's never been the tactic (or rather counter-tactic) I've been talking about either.  What I HAVE been talking about is readying to interrupt the first 'non-swift-action spell' (eg "Count one second and THEN fire").




And he casts his Quickened Fireball and the Archer says "Opps" as he is engulfed in flame.

This tactic is just as lame as readying a missile attack against the second spell and nearly as lame as readying a missile attack against a spell in general.

If my Wizard sees an Archer readying to fire at me (arrow notched, pointed in my general direction), I am going to move directly behind the big tank fighter to get a +4 Soft Cover AC bonus before I cast any spell. In fact, I will tend to move behind cover regardless of whether I see attackers. Just peering above a wall or around a corner is a +8 AC cover bonus.

In fact, the only real good ready action against a spell caster is another spell. For example, Fireball or Silence. Arrows are at most a nuisance, especially against intelligently run spell casters. Even if they hit, the caster often will make his Concentration check.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 4, 2005)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Question for everyone: I know using bluff is a standard action, but what would keep a mage from doing the same trick with the Bluff skill (I'm casting a quickened spell...PSYCH!!)?




The fact that the Bluff skill is a standard (or full-round) action, even in combat.

The only case of bluffing which is not a standard (or full-round) action is that of sending a secret message as per speaking. This is not an action, but part of the free action of speaking.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 4, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> if you want to stop a spellcaster dead in his tracks, you can simply "ready" a "silence'" spell (to be cast when the enemy spellcaster starts to cast).  (or read it from a scroll, or zap a wand of it).  This stops nearly all spellcasting without a roll/save/SR/anything.  Period.  Unless the enemy spellcaster knows what's coming up, or is casting a silenced spell just coincidentally, it's a wonderful way to stop even a level 20 wizard.  At least for one round.




Mind you, if I were a 20th level wizard I certainly think that quickened minor globe of invulnerability would be in my repetoire, or possibly even contingency: globe of invulnerability to go off at the start of a melee (trigger as agreed with DM). Silence spells are big threats to casters at that level and globe of invuln. is the best way to shut that threat down and eliminate it completely. You don't have to know that Silence is coming up *right now*, but this decent defensive spell is one of the few ways you can get absolute protection against silence along with a number of other nasty spells.

- just mentioning this in case other readers of the thread hadn't considered this counter 

Cheers


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 5, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The only case of bluffing which is not a standard (or full-round) action is that of sending a secret message as per speaking.




Or feinting in combat with Improved Feint feat, or the ??? Feint as part of the Invisible Blade Prestige Class, who can feint as a free action.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 5, 2005)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If my Wizard sees an Archer readying to fire at me (arrow notched, pointed in my general direction), I am going to move directly behind the big tank fighter to get a +4 Soft Cover AC bonus before I cast any spell. In fact, I will tend to move behind cover regardless of whether I see attackers. Just peering above a wall or around a corner is a +8 AC cover bonus.




Well, that's because your wizard is a big, girly wuss and not a real he-man.    

A little more seriously, just because one wizard would dash behind cover doesn't mean every one would. Besides, it's not like ducking behind cover invalidates the spell-feint tactic anyway. Move action to duck behind cover + free or swift action  + standard action spell is legal. It just adds a further complication for the archer.


----------



## two (Feb 5, 2005)

*hm...*



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Mind you, if I were a 20th level wizard I certainly think that quickened minor globe of invulnerability would be in my repetoire, or possibly even contingency: globe of invulnerability to go off at the start of a melee (trigger as agreed with DM). Silence spells are big threats to casters at that level and globe of invuln. is the best way to shut that threat down and eliminate it completely. You don't have to know that Silence is coming up *right now*, but this decent defensive spell is one of the few ways you can get absolute protection against silence along with a number of other nasty spells.
> 
> - just mentioning this in case other readers of the thread hadn't considered this counter
> 
> Cheers




I don't think this works for a number of reasons, some rules-based, some tactical.

1)  If you ready a silence, and the Wizard20 pops off a quickened Globe of Invulnerbility (lesser), it fails.  The silence spell is cast (triggered and resolved) before the quickened spell.  It's the central feature of the readied action.  So what you end up with is a Wizard20 trying to cast a quickened globe of invul. (lesser) in a silenced area -- illegal.  It does require a vocal component; quickening does not remove this requirement, unless I've missed a rule.  Ergo -- the quickened globe fails.  The Wizard CAN then move out of the Silence radius and cast, if he's got room to do so -- there is a benefit to the strategy.  But he's blown an 8th level slot, and the other guy just used a 2nd level spell.  [I know it's illogical that a standard spell is "cast" before the quickened spell, but it's in the rules.  You can justify it by saying the Silence spell was 99% cast, just a last word comlpeted it after the trigger  -- or something. ]  Now a quickened, silenced lesser globe of invulnerbility -- that would work.  Lousy 9th level spell, however.

2)  It's cheap to heighten a silence spell to overcome a globe of minor or not-so-minor invulnerbility.  A heightened (to 5th) silence ain't fun.  A heightened silence (to 4th) punches right through the globe of invis. (lesser).  In this case you are trading a 4th level spell for the quickened glob of I(L); 4th level vs. 8th level.  Any day of the week.

If you are going against a Wizard20, I'll assume you can figure out a way to heighten silence to 4th or 5th.  

3)  A contingency globe of invulnerbility (lesser or not-so-lesser) is one heck of a use of spell slots in order to get around a 2nd level spell. Tactically, if you force an enemy to do this, it's a good trade off. Just hit him with a heightened silence (5th level) and you still end up way ahead (contigency = 6th level, after all).

But this probably has a WHOLE lot more to do with the fact that silence is too powerful.

Even if you don't heighten silence, you give enemies fits and require them to burn spells as a countermeasure in advance (or memorize odd and not-great spells, like a quickened Globe of I).  

Readied "silence" spell.  The wizard-killer's best friend (right after a heavy pick critical, that is).


----------



## Sithobi1 (Feb 5, 2005)

Deleted because of faulty reading.


----------



## atom crash (Feb 5, 2005)

First off, I've only read the first and last page of this thread, so sorry if this rehashes what's already been said.

Now, it sounds like the player had an innovative way to fake out the bad guys. Kudos for him. But perhaps this tactic is so effective because now he knows exactly what to expect from you, the DM, in encounters. Take the initiate back, so to speak, and fake him out by changing up your routine. It was suggested by several people to try grappling, tanglefoot bags, etc. and not rely so heavily on readied actions. 

I think that's all sound advice. I love tanglefoot bags and nets myself. And you can't go wrong with a big nasty fighter, a spiked chain and that feat that doesn't let mages cast on the defensive just so he has to risk an AoO.

But don't abandon the readied action, either. Come up with 3 or 4, maybe 5 standard tactics and keep switching it up so he never really knows what to expect.

This way, it solves your issue but it still allows his cool trick/tactic to work some of the time, so he gets to keep having his fun.

In other words, reward him for his cleverness, but don't let the reward get too big.


----------



## KarinsDad (Feb 5, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> I don't think this works for a number of reasons, some rules-based, some tactical.




It actually does work fairly well, it just can be countered sometimes with forethought.

However, most enemies will not have that forethought.

For Silence, you need a Bard or a Cleric. Not every encounter with NPC spell casters includes a Bard or a Cleric.

For Heightened Silence, you need a specific type of Bard or Cleric (one with the Heightened feat).

You also need (to minimally guarantee at least temporary success) that specific type of Cleric to have actually prayed for a Heightened Silence today AND she must heighten it to 5th level, presumable to counter a Globe of Invulnerability. The  specific type of Bard does not have to concentrate on it, but 5th level spells are fairly high ones for a Bard, so it is pricey and easy to counter (see below).


Even in the case of just having a Cleric or Bard ready a Silence spell, the Cleric or Bard must also win initiative (or surprise the arcane spell caster). In the case of a Cleric, this will typically happen less often than a Wizard or Sorcerer winning initiative due to the fact that Dexterity tends to not be heavily pumped by Clerics (due to armor), but often somewhat pumped by arcane spell casters (if not just via items). And, Cat's Grace is not a Cleric spell, but is a Sorcerer/Wizard spell. And, arcane spell casters (at least ime) tend to take Improved Initiative more often than Clerics (especially Wizards since they have more feats). For Bards versus other arcane spell casters, it's often a toss up for initiative.


Granted, almost any spell caster can ready Dispel Magic or Greater Dispel Magic, but even that is not guaranteed.


Also, Silence has a 20 foot radius whereas Globe of Invulnerability has a 10 foot radius. If you cast the heightened version after the Globe is already up, it is typically easy for the arcane spell caster to walk out of the Globe, dispel the Silence (assuming he did not fail his saving throw against the Heightened Silence), and then walk back into the Globe (course, a Bard could just put the Heightened Silence back up again, but he'd be chewing up his 5th level spells). Or, the Wizard's fellow party member spell casters could often help him dispel the Silence as well.


And finally, even if a Bard or Cleric (with the non-heightened version of Silence) wins initiative, it is not always in her best interest to target a specific character with an anti-spell casting ready action. I know my wizards often walk around looking like monks, just so that new opponents want to avoid throwing spells at me. You get your party monk to try to look like a Wizard at the same time and it really freaks out the opposition for a round or two. 


All in all, Plane Sailing's tactic is sound. There are ways around it, but I suspect that his DM would not use them in most encounters, only some encounters (and even then, they had better be quick about it or they had better have the heightened version of Silence or several targeted Dispel Magic type spells available).


----------



## Shadowdweller (Feb 5, 2005)

To be honest, questions and defenses specifically against silence are largely irrelevant because there are any number of nasty higher-level attack spells which work equally well (for purposes of interruption) if readied.  A fireball or other high-damage spell, for instance, will typically make for an impossible concentration check...as well as having the benefit of inflicting damage.  Yes, yes...there are ways of getting around just about everything.  But such defenses ultimately require resources and care.  It's simply not practical to defend against everything.


----------



## Cergorach (Feb 5, 2005)

A couple of ideas that use the feature "don't mess with the universe":
1.) Next time he tries to use the finger spell, make him a pin cushion, hit him with two dozen arrows (more if he is really high level), don't kill him, but get the point across that it's really bad to try to get hit.
2.) Prepare a spell caster with a web spell, that way he wouldn't get the next spell off.
3.) Next time he pulls the finger spell out of his hat of tricks let it complete, let every enemy look his way slowly (for cinematic effect), and charge him (learning the hardway that you shouldn't call attention to yourself as a spellcaster).
4.) Pull the same trick on the party, but better. When they lay in ambush use a very convincing illusion to trigger it. Let everyone attack the illusion and then let the real bad guys appear free to act.

Just let the players feel that the world they game in has some sort of cosmic 'justice', don't flaunt it, just give them a hint... *grins evily*


----------



## Kilroy (Feb 8, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> I went OUT OF MY WAY TO MAKE CLEAR IN PREVIOUS POSTS THAT I DON'T READY ACTIONS TO MAKE SPELLCASTERS "USELESS" NOR TO STOP ANYONE'S FUN.  I DON'T WANT TO STOP SPELLCASTING I DO HOWEVER WANT BAD GUYS TO DO INTELLIGENT THINGS WHEN LOOKING DOWN THE BARREL OF A MAGICAL HOWITZER.




If you don't want to stop spellcasting, why remove his "do nothing" cantrip?  It seems like a perfectly good use of a spell.  There are piles of swift action 1st level spells now, and some of them are pretty powerful, so featherfall being broken certainly isn't the issue.  0th level is about right for a 'do not much' swift spell.

It's one thing to make every guy with a bow want and know how to stop a wizard.  That's fine, in character, even if it is a waste of actions, depressingly routine, and not particularly in my adventure-movie-D&D idiom.  It's quite another thing to come screaming on an internet forum that a player might be abusing a spell to let him get through your tried and true "I DON'T WANT TO STOP SPELLCASTING" tactic.  You give pretty mixed signals for someone who doesn't want to stop spellcasting.

That said, all that effort is pretty wasted.  Unless characters have made some wierd design decisions, all the classes are pretty evenly matched for "making mooks dead" ability, and having a major part of every other opposing force do nothing in a fight but try to keep one guy from casting seems like really screwed up encounter design.  It sounds like you may be more at home playing war games than D&D.


----------



## sullivan (Mar 2, 2005)

Well thanks to my sporadic 24/7 job 48 hours has turned into 3+ weeks....

For anyone [not KD] still interested in the subject of RAW of whether Feather Fall takes "extra effort" beyond normal Free Actions, but is incabable of solving the logic equation "A and (A or B)" to "A", please refer to the clarification of Swift And Immediate Actions, page 138/139 in the Complete Adventurer. I don't have Complete Arcane or Complete Divine [yet], but it's likely in there too at the beginning of the Spells chapter. This clarification is really only an extra language definition for what the core rules are that allows the ease of defining the extention of the one-per-round for Quickened spells to be applied to the now larger body that includes the addition of Quickened [non-spell] ki powers and such.

Anyway, onto the next thread.


----------

