PDA

View Full Version : Nerfing Abrupt Jaunt



Sinfire Titan
2010-04-17, 07:04 PM
To which he responds by readying an action to Abrupt Jaunt if you do anything.
He doesn't need to, it's an Immediate action.

This is somewhat relevant to anything regarding Abrupt Jaunt. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=7461.msg246818#msg246818)

Here's the relevant part.


The real problem is interupting your own spellcasting with an action that requires Concentration. Immediate action SLAs still require that, and casting a spell while casting a spell is explicitly forbidden by RAW last I checked, even if the casting times are Immediate/Standard.
Now THAT is an interesting point, and something that I hadn't thought of. So using Abrupt Jaunt to "dodge" a readied attack against your spellcasting will actually disrupt it you think?

Where is casting a spell while casting another spell expressly forbidden? I know you're forbidden to cast another spell while Concentrating on a spell, but that's not the same as casting one. Concentrating has a specific meaning (using a standard action to maintain a spell with a duration of Concentration), as far as I know. This interpretation certainly goes a long ways towards reigning in a potentially overpowered ACF, though. (I'm not sure I actually think it is overpowered, though. If it is, then familiars definitely are, as I think they are still more useful than this ACF.)
[/quote]



So, sound good? No Abrupt Jaunting while casting a spell without losing the spell?

Flickerdart
2010-04-17, 07:08 PM
Well, you could Jaunt before you cast, so all you'd be doing is nerfing the already mediocre 1-round casting time spells.

Starbuck_II
2010-04-17, 07:11 PM
Wait, how many people Abjure Jaunt while preparing to cast a 1 rd spell?

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2010-04-17, 07:25 PM
I had to follow that link to realize that this is in the context of a readied ranged attack, not a melee attack, so jaunting before you begin casting probably won't work.

I'll agree that once you begin casting a spell, if an opponent interrupts it with an attack, and you in turn abrupt jaunt out of the way of their attack, your own spell would be interrupted by your own abrupt jaunt.

If this were some sort of arena match, there would be plenty of ways out of the readied ranged attack even if there's no cover to get behind. Considering an immediate action takes the place of your next swift action, you can use a swift action and an immediate action in the same round. For example, a Swift Invisibility followed by an Abrupt Jaunt and then casting your spell would easily thwart the readied attack, though in this case you could replace abrupt jaunt with a 5-ft. step.

AmberVael
2010-04-17, 07:30 PM
Considering an immediate action takes the place of your next swift action, you can use a swift action and an immediate action in the same round.

Not so. I quote the srd:


Using an immediate action on your turn is the same as using a swift action, and counts as your swift action for that turn.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#immediateActions

jiriku
2010-04-17, 07:35 PM
So your scenario is wizard vs. archer.

Archer: I ready an action to shoot the wizard if he starts casting a spell.
Wizard: I cast a spell on the archer.
Archer: My readied action goes off! I shoot the wizard while he's casting his spell.
Wizard: I activate abrupt jaunt while the archer is shooting at me while I'm casting. Nyah nyah! Now I finish my spell and make the archer fall down.

I don't see anything in RAW that supports the idea that a character can perform two actions literally simultaneously. In fact, I see a lot of feats and abilities (Spring Attack, Flyby Attack, Ride-By Attack, and Swim-By Attack come to mind) that support the conceit that you can't interrupt one action to perform another without a specific ability permitting you to do so.

So I'd go you one further. No abrupt jaunting while casting a spell. The wizard isn't entitled to use his jaunt at all, because he's in the midst of performing another action and cannot jaunt until he completes his current action.

Thurbane
2010-04-17, 07:41 PM
Not so. I quote the srd:


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#immediateActions
Interesting link there...I did not think swift and immediate actions were actually part of the SRD, having come along later? Not relevant to the discussion at hand, but I found this a little surprising.

AmberVael
2010-04-17, 07:42 PM
d20srd tends to update itself with errata and new rules.

Tends to. Some stuff is still wrong, I recall, but I can't pinpoint what.

nyjastul69
2010-04-17, 07:47 PM
What product contains Abrupt Jaunt? I'm going to guess SC, which I don't own. Was it originally in another book?

Math_Mage
2010-04-17, 07:53 PM
Player's Handbook II.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-04-17, 07:54 PM
What product contains Abrupt Jaunt? I'm going to guess SC, which I don't own. Was it originally in another book?

It's an ACF from PHB2.

Ninja'd

jiriku
2010-04-17, 07:55 PM
What product contains Abrupt Jaunt? I'm going to guess SC, which I don't own. Was it originally in another book?

Abrupt Jaunt is a wizard (conjurer) ACF present in PH2. Pages 68-70, in fact. It allows a conjurer to teleport 10 feet as an immediate action a limited number of times per day, as a supernatural ability. Costs you your familiar, though.

nyjastul69
2010-04-17, 08:00 PM
Cool, thanks. I checked the PH II but I was assuming it was a spell not an ACF.

Koury
2010-04-17, 08:14 PM
So I'd go you one further. No abrupt jaunting while casting a spell. The wizard isn't entitled to use his jaunt at all, because he's in the midst of performing another action and cannot jaunt until he completes his current action.

I'd disagree with this entirely. Would you, in the same situation, not permit me to use, say, Moment of Perfect Mind?

I can see someone saying you lose the spell (though I disagree with it somewhat), but not being unable to take immediate actions at all?

jiriku
2010-04-17, 08:19 PM
I'd disagree with this entirely. Would you, in the same situation, not permit me to use, say, Moment of Perfect Mind?

I can see someone saying you lose the spell (though I disagree with it somewhat), but not being unable to take immediate actions at all?

Let me try reversing that for you. If you're using abrupt jaunt on your turn as a swift action, could you interrupt yourself to take a standard action to cast a different spell?

If you feel the two situations aren't comparable, what makes immediate actions special?

Thurbane
2010-04-17, 08:22 PM
A readied action goes off before the event that triggered it:

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.
Therefore, in the archer vs. abrupt jaunting caster example above, the archer's readied attack would go before the caster started casting. By RAW, the immediate abrupt jaunt would therefore happen before the casting, and would not interrupt concentration, if I'm reading everything correctly.

Starbuck_II
2010-04-17, 08:24 PM
Thurbane is correct. You'd be using an immediate before you cast not during.

Sinfire Titan
2010-04-17, 08:27 PM
I'd disagree with this entirely. Would you, in the same situation, not permit me to use, say, Moment of Perfect Mind?

I can see someone saying you lose the spell (though I disagree with it somewhat), but not being unable to take immediate actions at all?

The thing is, casting a spell requires concentration. Other strenuous actions can easily break concentration.

Immediate actions are more powerful than Move actions, and there is all ready a precedent for using a Move action during a Standard action (and vice versa, Flyby Attack and Mobile Spellcaster). Swift actions are equal to low-level Standard actions, according to some feats (Quicken Spell). And it's nigh impossible to cast a spell while casting another spell (Arcane Fusion is the only known method freely available to a caster that isn't currently Shapechanged into a Spellweaver, but even then a Spellweaver doesn't actually cast spells while casting spells, he just casts more spells).


Abrupt Jaunt is a spell-like ability. It is also an Immediate action to use. As a spell-like ability, it is subject to the Concentration rules. Spells require Concentration. Breaking your Concentration on another spell can cause the spell to fail. Therefore, using Abrupt Jaunt while casting another spell can cause the spell you are casting to fail.

Koury
2010-04-17, 08:28 PM
Wait, why am I using Abrupt Jaunt as a swift?

This is what I think you're asking:

Wizard: I use [standard action]
Bad Guy: That triggers my ready action! Eat [attack]!
Wizard: Um, no. Abrupt Jaunt! (Used as an immediate, as it is someone else's action he used it on)
[Bad Guy attack fails due to target not being there]
Wizard: Anyway, back to [standard action]!


That seems fine to me. The wizards swift for his next round is gone, he can't do it again (god forbid there be another opponent in the fight) this round, including when the bad guys actual turn comes up. The move did exactly what it was supposed to do (prevent an attack).

Also, tell me if I misinterpreted what you meant. I was a little unsure ad by no meansmean to put words in your mouth :smallsmile:

EDIT: Remind me to quote next time, this moved a little fast. Also, +1 to Thurbane

Runestar
2010-04-17, 08:29 PM
How would using abrupt jaunt disrupt the archer's ranged attack?

Melee attack yes, assuming the wizard is no longer within the fighter's threat range. But for ranged, wherever the wizard goes, the archer can still shoot at him. You are targeting the player after all, not the square he is in.

After all, you are using abrupt jaunt in response to being attacked, meaning you teleport before the attack has even taken place. The archer is still free to target you afterwards, though the new distance might make it more difficult to attack (say you appear behind cover, or cause him to incur range penalties or something).

Divide by Zero
2010-04-17, 08:30 PM
but even then a Spellweaver doesn't actually cast spells while casting spells

Yo dawg, I herd you like spells, so we put a spell in your spell so you can cast while you cast.

TheMadLinguist
2010-04-17, 09:21 PM
meaning you teleport before the attack has even taken place.

Which means that you haven't yet attempted to cast the spell, which means that the archer hasn't used his readied action, so he never shot his arrow, so your abrupt jaunt never happened, so you attempted to cast the spell, which triggered the archer's readied action, which caused you to use abrupt jaunt, which means that you haven't yet attempted...

jiriku
2010-04-17, 09:28 PM
Yo dawg, I herd you like spells, so we put a spell in your spell so you can cast while you cast.

That was really inevitable, given the nature of the discussion. :smallwink:

Hmm, given Thurbane's quote of the SRD, I'm willing to withdraw my position. The sequence would be:

Wizard declares spell
Archer declares use of readied action
Wizard declares abrupt jaunt
Wizard begins, resolves, and finishes abrupt jaunt
Archer begins, resolves, and finishes readied action
Wizard begins, resolves, and finishes spell

It might not seem intuitive, but there has to be some method of resolving conflicts, as the RAW method, this has as firm a footing as we're likely to get.

..........waitaminnit. How can you both go before a character and interrupt his action? I take it back. The RAW method makes my head hurt. Damn WotC, bringing M:TG rules into this game! :smallbiggrin:

Divide by Zero
2010-04-17, 09:55 PM
..........waitaminnit. How can you both go before a character and interrupt his action? I take it back. The RAW method makes my head hurt. Damn WotC, bringing M:TG rules into this game! :smallbiggrin:

Using the stack rules seems simple enough to me.

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-17, 10:03 PM
A simple solution to the ranged-attack-hitting-you-because-you-teleported-before-the-attack-takes-place problem is to use abrupt jaunt when the arrow comes within 10' of you.

The attack is made, the arrow travels within the alloted space, and you jaunt. Voila.

Koury
2010-04-17, 10:50 PM
I concur with Lyc. I'm always careful to describe exactly when I jaunt :smallbiggrin:

Math_Mage
2010-04-17, 11:46 PM
Using the stack rules seems simple enough to me.

In a mechanical sense, maybe. But in a simulation sense, the archer is deciding to attack the wizard upon seeing the wizard begin to concentrate on his spell, and yet the attack happens before the wizard begins concentrating on his spell. In a simulation sense, it works better if the archer fires after the wizard starts concentrating, at which point the wizard can decide to break his concentration and use Abrupt Jaunt to get out of the way.

Rephrasing things in terms of the stack, the act of putting an action on the stack means you're concentrating on that action, so you can't have multiple actions on the stack at one time. In this example, the wizard puts his spell on the stack, the archer puts his attack on the stack, and then the wizard can choose to remove his spell from the stack and put Jaunt on the stack instead. Special exceptions exist--Spring Attack lets you have a move action and an attack action on the stack at the same time, for example.

I don't want to claim this way of looking at it is better, or more RAW, or anything. But it seems like a logically consistent system that a DM could use if he wanted to. I don't know what ramifications this may have, of course. I heard someone mention Moment of Perfect Mind, and this concept would nerf that maneuver in the event that you were forced to make a Will save while performing some other action. So nothing's perfect.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-18, 12:16 AM
I don't see anything in RAW that supports the idea that a character can perform two actions literally simultaneously. In fact, I see a lot of feats and abilities (Spring Attack, Flyby Attack, Ride-By Attack, and Swim-By Attack come to mind) that support the conceit that you can't interrupt one action to perform another without a specific ability permitting you to do so.


Free actions are stated to often be taken while performing other actions. For example: Drawing an arrow while shooting as a full attack action. So multiple actions are allowed at the same time.

Swift actions can be taken whenever you can perform a free action.
Immediate actions on your turn have the timings of a swift.
Immediate actions expliticly state that they can be taken at any time. At ANY time.

That's the specific ability permitting it. At any time.
So, if the question is, "Can I do this immediate action while..." and you are able to perform actions (not paralyzed, for instance), and the trigger is one that your character is aware of?

The answer is yes.

2xMachina
2010-04-18, 04:47 AM
So your scenario is wizard vs. archer.

Archer: I ready an action to shoot the wizard if he starts casting a spell.
Wizard: I cast a spell on the archer.
Archer: My readied action goes off! I shoot the wizard while he's casting his spell.
Wizard: I activate abrupt jaunt while the archer is shooting at me while I'm casting. Nyah nyah! Now I finish my spell and make the archer fall down.

I don't see anything in RAW that supports the idea that a character can perform two actions literally simultaneously. In fact, I see a lot of feats and abilities (Spring Attack, Flyby Attack, Ride-By Attack, and Swim-By Attack come to mind) that support the conceit that you can't interrupt one action to perform another without a specific ability permitting you to do so.

So I'd go you one further. No abrupt jaunting while casting a spell. The wizard isn't entitled to use his jaunt at all, because he's in the midst of performing another action and cannot jaunt until he completes his current action.

Archer: I ready an action to shoot the wizard if he starts casting a spell.
Wizard: I pretend tocast a spell on the archer.
Archer: My readied action goes off! I shoot the wizard while he's casting his spell.
Wizard: I activate abrupt jaunt while the archer is shooting at me while I'm casting. Nyah nyah! Now I finish cast my spell and make the archer fall down.

Done? Your archer has 0 spell craft ranks to know if I'm faking it or not.

The Cat Goddess
2010-04-18, 05:37 AM
I can solve this.... with a second archer.

Archer #1: Readied action to fire when Wizard starts casting.
Archer #2: Readied action to fire when Wizard casts.

If Wizard starts casting a spell, Archer #1 fires.
Then Wizard Abrupt Jaunts.
Abrupt Jaunt is "cast", so Archer #2 fires and interrupts the Abrupt Jaunt!

Amphetryon
2010-04-18, 05:52 AM
Archer: I ready an action to shoot the wizard if he starts casting a spell.
Wizard: I pretend tocast a spell on the archer.
Archer: My readied action goes off! I shoot the wizard while he's casting his spell.
Wizard: I activate abrupt jaunt while the archer is shooting at me while I'm casting. Nyah nyah! Now I finish cast my spell and make the archer fall down.

Done? Your archer has 0 spell craft ranks to know if I'm faking it or not.

That'd be a Bluff check. How many ranks do you have? Bluff is typically countered by Sense Motive, so hope the archer isn't invested in that skill.

The Cat Goddess
2010-04-18, 06:02 AM
That'd be a Bluff check. How many ranks do you have? Bluff is typically countered by Sense Motive, so hope the archer isn't invested in that skill.

Conceal Spellcasting Skill Trick... Goes vs. Spot instead of Sense Motive.

Amphetryon
2010-04-18, 06:08 AM
Conceal Spellcasting Skill Trick... Goes vs. Spot instead of Sense Motive.

Hooray for the archer, then. He's almost certainly invested in Spot, since it's integral to his basic combat shtick. If he's got Spot as a class skill, it means he'd have to use a class skill to beat the wizard's cross-class skill. I'll generally take those odds.

Let's not move the goalposts and switch the Wizard to something with Bluff as a class skill now, shall we? :smallwink:

2xMachina
2010-04-18, 06:51 AM
It is really a bluff?

I just do some handwaves and say mumbojumbo. Do you really know it's a spell? You need spellcraft to identify a spell.

Amphetryon
2010-04-18, 06:52 AM
It is really a bluff?

I just do some handwaves and say mumbojumbo. Do you really know it's a spell? You need spellcraft to identify a spell.

If it were a spell, you'd need spellcraft. You're pretending to cast a spell. Playing makebelieve with the intent to fool someone else, is a bluff check.

2xMachina
2010-04-18, 06:55 AM
What if I make the same moves I make as I cast a spell? I just don't invest the magic.

Between shooting a blank, and a real bullet, can you really tell?

EDIT: Eh, well, I agree that sense motive could be used. And it doesn't oppose anything else than bluff.

Amphetryon
2010-04-18, 07:14 AM
What if I make the same moves I make as I cast a spell? I just don't invest the magic.

Between shooting a blank, and a real bullet, can you really tell?

EDIT: Eh, well, I agree that sense motive could be used. And it doesn't oppose anything else than bluff.
Yep, you're still describing a bluff.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-04-18, 07:41 AM
Yes, that does seem like a bluff. Perhaps with the +5 modifier for an easily believable one, and possibly another circumstance bonus for expertise with motions, but still fundamentally a Bluff check.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-18, 08:14 AM
Bluff isn't always opposed by sense motive.

In the case of faking spellcasting, sense motive should tell "something's not right with his actions, it feels like he's attempting to mislead you".

Note: Someone with still/silent spell could make the motions for a Bull's Strength while casting Dominate Person.

Spellcraft should tell "he's not casting the spell he's pretending to cast".

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-18, 10:05 AM
We rule abrupt jaunt as a swift action, so no escaping attacks, but you can still move 10 feet freely, and get out of grapples.

SlyGuyMcFly
2010-04-18, 04:32 PM
I can solve this.... with a second archer.

Archer #1: Readied action to fire when Wizard starts casting.
Archer #2: Readied action to fire when Wizard casts.

If Wizard starts casting a spell, Archer #1 fires.
Then Wizard Abrupt Jaunts.
Abrupt Jaunt is "cast", so Archer #2 fires and interrupts the Abrupt Jaunt!

But that activates the Wizard's Contingent Teleport: Cast Teleport if my Abrupt Jaunt is interrupted!

Not to worry though, for there is a third archer who says 'just as planned', and executes his readied action: 'Shoot the Wizard if a contingent spell is cast'.

Starbuck_II
2010-04-18, 04:40 PM
But that activates the Wizard's Contingent Teleport: Cast Teleport if my Abrupt Jaunt is interrupted!

Not to worry though, for there is a third archer who says 'just as planned', and executes his readied action: 'Shoot the Wizard if a contingent spell is cast'.

What if he has another contingency from the Crafy Contingency feat?

Koury
2010-04-18, 04:42 PM
Well, there are more archers, obviously.

The Glyphstone
2010-04-18, 04:45 PM
If an infinite number of archers meet an infinite number of Crafted Contingencies, will they eventually reproduce the entire printed works of Gygax?

Koury
2010-04-18, 04:57 PM
I still don't quite think Abrupt Jaunt is in need of nerfage. Is it strong? Yeah, sure. At low levels, you can avoid 1 attack/round up to maybe 6 times a day. In a 1v1 fight? Super useful. Fighting multiple opponets? Much less so.

Also, you use your tasty swift action for the next round, and give up your familiar.

At higher levels you can do it like up to 15 times a day (40 Int is a lot, but doable, Im sure) but that doesn't matter because you're not being hit for 73 other reasons.

Paulus
2010-04-18, 05:48 PM
I think because it is abrupt it ruins your concentration, abruptly.

So it'd go...

Archer: I ready an action to attack the wizard if he casts a spell.
Wizard: I know he is readying an action to attack me if I cast a spell so I pretend to cast a spell.
Archer: I think he is bluffing, you're bluffing, are you bluffing?
Wizard: I am bluffing, or am I? oooooOOOWWWWOOOOooooo!! *finger wiggle*
Archer: I think that's a spell I shoot at him!
Wizard: AH HA! I use abrupt jaunt to get out of the wa-
Archer: I see he is casting abrupt jaunt which is a spell and thus causing my readied action since he is actually casting a spell since he didn't before and thus didn't trigger my readied action but does now!
Wizard: I- wait what? So you interrupt my abrupt jaunt?
Archer: yes.
Wizard: okay.. there goes my swift action then... I uh, cast my standard action and you fall down now.
Archer: ha ha Yes I- wait what!?
Wizard: *shrug*
Archer: but I hit you...
Wizard: and so did I...
Archer: But you got your immediate spell in my ready attack...
Wizard: and you got your ready attack in my immediate spell...
Archer: you say immediately I say i-made-it-ready...
Wizard: you say interrupt I as abrupt...
Wizard&Archer: Let's call the whole thing off!

and that is how it would happen. I know. I was there.

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-18, 07:30 PM
I still don't quite think Abrupt Jaunt is in need of nerfage. Is it strong? Yeah, sure. At low levels, you can avoid 1 attack/round up to maybe 6 times a day. In a 1v1 fight? Super useful. Fighting multiple opponets? Much less so.

Also, you use your tasty swift action for the next round, and give up your familiar.

At higher levels you can do it like up to 15 times a day (40 Int is a lot, but doable, Im sure) but that doesn't matter because you're not being hit for 73 other reasons.

Except it's more powerful than a 4th level buff spell, and you don't even need to cast it. And since when do wizards use swift action spells anyway? 90% of them are gish things.

Flickerdart
2010-04-18, 07:41 PM
Except it's more powerful than a 4th level buff spell, and you don't even need to cast it. And since when do wizards use swift action spells anyway? 90% of them are gish things.
Quicken Spell?

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-18, 07:53 PM
Quicken Spell?

Isn't quicken a free action once per round?

EDIT: That's really weird, I could have sworn quicken wasn't swift in the PHB... But I guess it was an errata if it was in the SRD. And until you are 9th level, you can't even use quicken anyway.

The Shadowmind
2010-04-18, 07:54 PM
Isn't quicken a free action once per round?

Got updated to a swift.

Eldariel
2010-04-18, 07:58 PM
Isn't quicken a free action once per round?

EDIT: That's really weird, I could have sworn quicken wasn't swift in the PHB... But I guess it was an errata if it was in the SRD. And until you are 9th level, you can't even use quicken anyway.

Swift actions didn't exist until Complete Arcane. That's why.

Koury
2010-04-18, 08:12 PM
I can find 48 swift action spells, with a quick search.

EDIT: On the Sor/Wiz spell list.

FMArthur
2010-04-18, 08:40 PM
It's still a prime example of the way enemies try and do something, anything meaningful in an encounter and the wizard's just like "lolno" and effortlessly shuts them down. It doesn't change the outcome significantly, on account of the wizard's many defenses and piles of Win Buttons. It just rubs it in. Makes threats to the wizard seem even more trivial.

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-18, 08:41 PM
I can find 48 swift action spells, with a quick search.

EDIT: On the Sor/Wiz spell list.

And of those, which would you actually prepare regularly? Because I can't recall any. One or two immediates like Hesitate, but not much else.

lesser_minion
2010-04-18, 08:45 PM
Because it is relevant:


If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character.


Or, in essence, the readied action resolves before the triggering one, but is still considered to take place during it.

Also, the only way using abrupt jaunt as a defence against a readied attack could be legal is if it was already legal to respond to the same attack by using your move action to walk away from it.

The rules don't provide for any actions to be used as a response to a readied action, free, immediate, or otherwise.

Koury
2010-04-18, 08:53 PM
And of those, which would you actually prepare regularly? Because I can't recall any. One or two immediates like Hesitate, but not much else.

Abrupt Jaunt isn't a spell even, is it?

Anyway, to answer the question:

Assay Spell Resistance
Blockade
Distract Assailent
Swift Expeditious Retreat
Golem Strike (Wand of, of course)
Incite
Invoke Magic
Sure Strike
Wraithstrike

So, 9/45? Not bad. What percent of standard action spells do you normally prepare?

Also, to reitterate, you lose your familiar for an ability that only matters for all of 5 levels.

krossbow
2010-04-18, 09:05 PM
Somewhere along the way, this is going to end up with someone declaring the other one's activated their trap card

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-18, 09:07 PM
Somewhere along the way, this is going to end up with someone declaring the other one's activated their trap cardIt's a trap!






Now, just try and figure out how I meant that one...

Zaq
2010-04-18, 09:19 PM
Somewhere along the way, this is going to end up with someone declaring the other one's activated their trap card

Please. D&D is much more serious than a children's card game. We're just grown men and women spending their free time pretending to be dwarves with magic powers, not, you know, card-players.

:smallbiggrin:

Thurbane
2010-04-18, 09:41 PM
Something to note here: if someone has stated they are readying for someone to cast a spell, then by strict definition, they have not readied for use of an SLA. i.e. Abrupt Jaunt is an SLA, not a spell.

However, on a tangent, here's something that always irked me:

Spell-Like: Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, material, focus, or XP components). They go away in an antimagic field and are subject to spell resistance if the spell the ability resembles or duplicates would be subject to spell resistance.
How exactly does something with no somatic (or other) components provoke an AoO?

Player: "This guy is squinting like he's concentrating on something, Attack of Opportunity!"
Opponent: "Actually I was just pooping my pantaloons..."
Player: "Hey DM, does that provoke an AoO?"

lesser_minion
2010-04-18, 09:50 PM
Something to note here: if someone has stated they are readying for someone to cast a spell, then by strict definition, they have not readied for use of an SLA. i.e. Abrupt Jaunt is an SLA, not a spell.

Abrupt Jaunt doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.

tyckspoon
2010-04-18, 09:59 PM
The rules don't provide for any actions to be used as a response to a readied action, free, immediate, or otherwise.

They can be responded to in the same way any other action can; the rules don't need to provide special consideration for that because a readied action is not a special type of action in anything except its timing. If you have something that can react out-of-turn, like a Contingency or a relevant Immediate action, it can react to a readied action the same way it would anything else.

At least, that's the only way I am able to interpret the rules. What lead you to your conclusion?

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-18, 10:35 PM
Because it is relevant:



Or, in essence, the readied action resolves before the triggering one, but is still considered to take place during it.

Also, the only way using abrupt jaunt as a defence against a readied attack could be legal is if it was already legal to respond to the same attack by using your move action to walk away from it.

The rules don't provide for any actions to be used as a response to a readied action, free, immediate, or otherwise.

Actually?

An immediate action can be used at any time (provided you're aware of the trigger, and are not flat footed).

When you wake up? Yep.
While eating cereal? Yep.
When an enemy casts a spell? Yep (after all, several counterspell actions are immediate).
When an enemy takes a ready action? Yes.

"At any time" means precisely that. If the time exists within the framework of D&D's temporal system, and you meet the basic requirements to take the immediate action, you may take it.

There's nothing really that can be said to that.

Math_Mage
2010-04-18, 10:43 PM
Actually?

An immediate action can be used at any time (provided you're aware of the trigger, and are not flat footed).

When you wake up? Yep.
While eating cereal? Yep.
When an enemy casts a spell? Yep (after all, several counterspell actions are immediate).
When an enemy takes a ready action? Yes.

"At any time" means precisely that. If the time exists within the framework of D&D's temporal system, and you meet the basic requirements to take the immediate action, you may take it.

There's nothing really that can be said to that.

I think lesser_minion's contribution is more applicable to the discussion of whether you are able to continue performing your other action afterwards. Yes, you can take the Abrupt Jaunt whenever you want--but if the readied attack takes place while you are concentrating on your spell, and you decide to concentrate on Jaunting out of the way, can you still go back to conentrating on the original spell? What if you're casting a spell with a 1-round casting time, and your opponent attacks you on his/her turn, and you Jaunt out of the way? This is why I made the suggestion (which nobody seems to have commented on) about how many actions one can have on the stack at a time--that is, 1 (barring free actions, feats like Spring Attack, and so on).

lesser_minion
2010-04-18, 11:07 PM
They can be responded to in the same way any other action can; the rules don't need to provide special consideration for that because a readied action is not a special type of action in anything except its timing. If you have something that can react out-of-turn, like a Contingency or a relevant Immediate action, it can react to a readied action the same way it would anything else.

There is nothing inherently special about a swift action - it's just a free action with a limit on how often you can use it.

A character whose action is interrupted:

-- Is committed to the action.
-- Has already started to perform the action.

If they want a chance to respond to being interrupted, they need special consideration.


Actually?

An immediate action can be used at any time (provided you're aware of the trigger, and are not flat footed).

When you wake up? Yep.
While eating cereal? Yep.

Both irrelevant.


When an enemy casts a spell? Yep (after all, several counterspell actions are immediate).

With a feat, and the counterspell interrupts.


When an enemy takes a ready action? Yes.

No. See above.


"At any time" means precisely that. If the time exists within the framework of D&D's temporal system, and you meet the basic requirements to take the immediate action, you may take it.

There's nothing really that can be said to that.

Actually?

No action, immediate or not, resolves at the same time as another action unless explicitly stated otherwise. Even if the rules describe it as happening at the same time.

See also Evocation's version of Immediate Magic, the rules for readying actions, the feats that permit you to attack while still resolving a move, and the additional rules applied to mounted combatants.

Oh, and the rules for the sole action type that is an exception, the "not an action".

jiriku
2010-04-18, 11:26 PM
Free actions are stated to often be taken while performing other actions. For example: Drawing an arrow while shooting as a full attack action. So multiple actions are allowed at the same time.

Swift actions can be taken whenever you can perform a free action.
Immediate actions on your turn have the timings of a swift.
Immediate actions expliticly state that they can be taken at any time. At ANY time.

That's the specific ability permitting it. At any time.
So, if the question is, "Can I do this immediate action while..." and you are able to perform actions (not paralyzed, for instance), and the trigger is one that your character is aware of?

The answer is yes.

OK, I can buy that. By extension then, one can stack multiple effects without disrupting concentration (as the OP was concerned about), because swift actions can be performed "without affecting your ability to perform other actions".


@ Thurbane: It's not the somatic component that draws an AoO when you activate a spell or SLA, it's the fact that for a moment, you stop paying attention to the fact that your opponent is attempting to stick a 4-foot razor blade in the approximate center of your heart.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-18, 11:27 PM
Actually?

No action, immediate or not, resolves at the same time as another action unless explicitly stated otherwise. Even if the rules describe it as happening at the same time.

Immediate actions: Can be taken at any time. This is explicitly stated. Therefore, "At the same time as another action" is valid.

So, let's see. I concentrate on a spell. Does this mean I cannot move? After all, I can't do that at the same time?

NO.

Concentrating on a spell is a standard action. You take that action, and then move (and you are considered to be concentrating). The action is already taken, and satisfies the action requirements for the round.

There is no RAW stating that you can't do any of the following while concentrating:

Movement
Charging (should you be able to gain a full round action)
Standing up
Making an attack of opportunity
Making an attack (should you be able to gain a standard action)
Drawing a weapon/readying a shield.

For action purposes, you need only expend a standard action. What you do with the remainder of your actions is unrestricted, and follows all normal rules for taking actions. Why? Because the game does not restrict what you may do while concentrating.

If you wish to see an example where actions are restricted? Look at the Run Full round action. That actually changes what you can do. Concentrating on a spell?

There's no RAW to support the claims you make.

Godskook
2010-04-18, 11:51 PM
A readied action goes off before the event that triggered it:

Therefore, in the archer vs. abrupt jaunting caster example above, the archer's readied attack would go before the caster started casting. By RAW, the immediate abrupt jaunt would therefore happen before the casting, and would not interrupt concentration, if I'm reading everything correctly.

This is incorrect. When you ready an action to disrupt someone's spellcasting, your readied action is designated to go off before the spell finishes, not starts. Said wizard will begin his casting as normal, then, before his spell finishes, your readied action triggers.

olentu
2010-04-19, 12:21 AM
This is incorrect. When you ready an action to disrupt someone's spellcasting, your readied action is designated to go off before the spell finishes, not starts. Said wizard will begin his casting as normal, then, before his spell finishes, your readied action triggers.

I was rather sure the trigger for disrupting a spell was if the target starts to cast a spell. This would mean that the action does go off before the target starts to cast the spell. Let me look that up.

Soranar
2010-04-19, 12:38 AM
oh, that's a headache and a half

I'd probably just rule it with DM fiat but you're actually creating a kind of paradox here

Archer: I ready an attack against the mage if he starts to cast
Mage: I cas..
Archer: Readied action is triggered I shoot
Mage: I abrupt jaunt
...

Since you stop casting to jaunt, the archer doesn't fire... yet he does.
Now here's is the problem, you don't need to stop casting to jaunt as you can do both at the same time (like chewing gum and walking, albeit difficult can be pulled off with practice, a mythological being that can control the laws of the universe can probably abrupt jaunt and cast)

Being vague , while using laws, is never a good idea. But sometimes it's preferable to instill the spirit of the law (aka the intent behind the law) than trying to apply it's wording, as words tend to be imprecise (as we can see in this case).

Even worse, SRD makes this even vaguer:

Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free.

and when describing swift actions:

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 only a single swift action per turn.

Considering this, even free actions have limits. For example: you can only talk for so long in a round (6 seconds to be exact as the round lasts that much time) even though talking is a free action (an action you can perform while doing other things).

And even then, talking is not possible when casting spells (as you are forming magic incantations).

You also have to consider response time: the mage needs to notice an archer readied an action against him and respond to it.

So if I was the DM in that event this would be my ruling:

Either you get hit before you teleport, or after, but you do get hit (should the archer succeed his attack obviously).

N.B.: If I was an archer vs a mage though, I'd just do a ranged sunder on his components pouch.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-19, 12:45 AM
oh, that's a headache and a half

I'd probably just rule it with DM fiat but you're actually creating a kind of paradox here

Archer: I ready an attack against the mage if he starts to cast
Mage: I cas..
Archer: Readied action is triggered I shoot
Mage: I abrupt jaunt
...

Since you stop casting to jaunt, the archer doesn't fire... yet he does.
Now here's is the problem, you don't need to stop casting to jaunt as you can do both at the same time (like chewing gum and walking, albeit difficult can be pulled off with practice, a mythological being that can control the laws of the universe can probably abrupt jaunt and cast)
Bolded statement unsupported by RAW. Show where taking one action negates another that you're taking, without explicit text to that effect. Show where that's the general rule.


And even then, talking is not possible when casting spells (as you are forming magic incantations).It is if the spell is modified by Silent Spell.

You also have to consider response time: the mage needs to notice an archer readied an action against him and respond to it.Mage doesn't need to notice the readied action, only the arrow being fired (i.e. only the execution of that readied action).


So if I was the DM in that event this would be my ruling:

Either you get hit before you teleport, or after, but you do get hit (should the archer succeed his attack obviously).Abrupt Jaunt explicitly contradicts that, as does the timing of readied actions. Now, if the abrupt jaunt doesn't get you out of LOS, yes, the archer can still hit you. However, if you jaunt to the other side of a wall, you're not getting hit by the arrow.


N.B.: If I was an archer vs a mage though, I'd just do a ranged sunder on his components pouch.
Not without the right feats, you wouldn't. Piercing weapons cannot sunder. Further, if the item is attended and within his robes, you'll have a hard time establishing the target.

The Cat Goddess
2010-04-19, 12:56 AM
Not without the right feats, you wouldn't. Piercing weapons cannot sunder. Further, if the item is attended and within his robes, you'll have a hard time establishing the target.

The Ranged Sunder Feat specifically mentions using arrows.

Godskook
2010-04-19, 01:04 AM
I was rather sure the trigger for disrupting a spell was if the target starts to cast a spell. This would mean that the action does go off before the target starts to cast the spell. Let me look that up.

Its right here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm):


You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.

Logically, you must have started something to continue it, so therefore, by RAW, the action of casting the spell has already started when the readied action goes off.

Divide by Zero
2010-04-19, 01:10 AM
Further, if the item is attended and within his robes, you'll have a hard time establishing the target.

:smallamused:

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-19, 01:16 AM
Its right here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm):

Logically, you must have started something to continue it, so therefore, by RAW, the action of casting the spell has already started when the readied action goes off.


You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
Emphasis mine. It occurs before. "Continues his actions" does not equal "continues the action which triggered".

In every round, I have a standard, a move, and a swift action.

Say I move, then I take my standard, and you react with a ready action to the standard. It happens before my standard. Now, if it happens before my standard, logically? The standard happens after it. So I'm required to do the standard action (as it must happen after the ready action). Thereafter, I choose to take my swift.

In this example, after the ready action, I continued my actions. But the ready action still occurred before the trigger, per RAW.

Soranar
2010-04-19, 01:20 AM
Bolded statement unsupported by RAW. Show where taking one action negates another that you're taking, without explicit text to that effect.

I'm impressed. You quote me (and the part where I say the bolded statement is not true, thus my opinion that the whole concept is a paradox) and yet you just don't read.

Kinda like Fox news.

As mentioned above, ranged sunder is designed to work with arrows.

Also, since a wizard requires components to cast spells, spotting where he gets those components is hardly difficult (unless you're disabled from the first spell he casts...wizards aren't tier 1 without reason). Even better if you immolate his robe and argue that his component pouch went poof.

I'll finish with the common sense argument: Wizards are powerful enough without giving them even more things to break the game with.

Koury
2010-04-19, 01:23 AM
I'll finish with the common sense argument: Wizards are powerful enough without giving them even more things to break the game with.

I agree. Except about Abrupt Jaunt breaking the game.

Math_Mage
2010-04-19, 01:27 AM
Emphasis mine. It occurs before. "Continues his actions" does not equal "continues the action which triggered".

In every round, I have a standard, a move, and a swift action.

Say I move, then I take my standard, and you react with a ready action to the standard. It happens before my standard. Now, if it happens before my standard, logically? The standard happens after it. So I'm required to do the standard action (as it must happen after the ready action). Thereafter, I choose to take my swift.

In this example, after the ready action, I continued my actions. But the ready action still occurred before the trigger, per RAW.

Seems like a case of 'RAW, however stupid'. The person readying an action apparently has precognition of the imminent beginning of the trigger action and so completes his action before the other one begins? "Yes, officer, I decided to shoot him only if he drew his pistol, but he never actually went for his pistol because I shot him first. No, his hand didn't move before I shot him. How did I know he was going to draw his pistol? Just psychic, I guess."

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-19, 01:28 AM
I'm impressed. You quote me (and the part where I say the bolded statement is not true, thus my opinion that the whole concept is a paradox) and yet you just don't read.

Kinda like Fox news. Is this my cue to be impressed that you contradicted yourself numerous times then? How is one supposed to know your position when what you're saying changes after every punctuation mark?


As mentioned above, ranged sunder is designed to work with arrows.

Also, since a wizard requires components to cast spells, spotting where he gets those components is hardly difficult (unless you're disabled from the first spell he casts...wizards aren't tier 1 without reason). Even better if you immolate his robe and argue that his component pouch went poof.Wizard reaches into a fold in his robes and pulls something out.

Without LoS, you're shooting at something with total concealment.

Show me a RAW effect that allows you to destroy clothing via burning.

In other words, back up ANYTHING you say with something that actually resembles a rule source, rather than some pithy sarcasm concerning your opinion of news agencies.

Because that's the only thing that will actually support your argument, rather than your ego.


I'll finish with the common sense argument: Wizards are powerful enough without giving them even more things to break the game with.

I'll finish with another. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You want to make up things for the fighter, it's only fair to do it in reverse.

All the "hurr hurr wizards suck" threads have one thing in common. They eventually prove themselves right... Right after they first:

Bind the wizard, with no spells prepared, no buffs active, unable to reach his equipment, handcuffed with masterwork adamantine manacles, whilst the fighter stands over him with a x4 crit weapon, the feat that allows a standard action Coup de grace, and a readied action to do so.

Engineering a Kobiyashi Maru doesn't prove anything, other than your ability to set lopsided conditions in a class comparison.

I'm not trying to give a wizard anything more to break the game with than the rules grant him in black and white.

Math_Mage
2010-04-19, 01:38 AM
I'll finish with another. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You want to make up things for the fighter, it's only fair to do it in reverse.

All the "hurr hurr wizards suck" threads have one thing in common. They eventually prove themselves right... Right after they first:

Bind the wizard, with no spells prepared, no buffs active, unable to reach his equipment, handcuffed with masterwork adamantine manacles, whilst the fighter stands over him with a x4 crit weapon, the feat that allows a standard action Coup de grace, and a readied action to do so.

Engineering a Kobiyashi Maru doesn't prove anything, other than your ability to set lopsided conditions in a class comparison.

I'm not trying to give a wizard anything more to break the game with than the rules grant him in black and white.

Did you mean to post this somewhere else? Because last I checked, this was a discussion of the potential balance issues and remedies for one single ACF for the wizard, not a "hurr hurr wizards suck" thread that takes away all the caster's spells and gives the fighter...well, anything, since fighters are irrelevant to the thread.

Soranar
2010-04-19, 01:42 AM
Wizard reaches into a fold in his robes and pulls something out.

Without LoS, you're shooting at something with total concealment.

Show me a RAW effect that allows you to destroy clothing via burning.

Items of any kind have hitpoints and can take damage. Fire causes damage, an item without hitpoints is destroyed.

Or am I making this up?



In other words, back up ANYTHING you say with something that actually resembles a rule source, rather than some pithy sarcasm concerning your opinion of news agencies.

What's a pithy sarcasm?



Because that's the only thing that will actually support your argument, rather than your ego.

To troll , or not to troll , that is the question.



I'll finish with another. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You want to make up things for the fighter, it's only fair to do it in reverse.

I'm not making things up, most people just forget that items get destroyed by fireballs and the like. It is a rule, just one most prefer to forget.



All the "hurr hurr wizards suck" threads have one thing in common. They eventually prove themselves right... Right after they first:

Bind the wizard, with no spells prepared, no buffs active, unable to reach his equipment, handcuffed with masterwork adamantine manacles, whilst the fighter stands over him with a x4 crit weapon, the feat that allows a standard action Coup de grace, and a readied action to do so.

Engineering a Kobiyashi Maru doesn't prove anything, other than your ability to set lopsided conditions in a class comparison.

I'm not trying to give a wizard anything more to break the game with than the rules grant him in black and white.

I'm just pointing out, like most wizard haters, that the point of the game is to have fun. Breaking the game is not fun (this is a value judgment, feel free to disagree). I'm not even sure this is worth being concerned over though: since familiars are quite capable of breaking the game (Pun-Pun I'm looking at you).

So getting an ability that shuts down most opponents for a couple of turns a day at level 1 seems trivial.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-19, 01:43 AM
Did you mean to post this somewhere else? Because last I checked, this was a discussion of the potential balance issues and remedies for one single ACF for the wizard, not a "hurr hurr wizards suck" thread that takes away all the caster's spells and gives the fighter...well, anything, since fighters are irrelevant to the thread.

No. It's equally valid with fighter, monk, or <insert nonfullcast class>.

It's one thing to claim it's unbalanced. It's another to claim that it doesn't work that way.

It's like if I bring a pistol to a duel, and my opponent got a knife. He could say, "that's not fair" and he'd be right.

When he says, "no, guns don't actually propel bullets at rapid velocity from their barrel when the trigger is pulled"? Well, the greatest boon about being shot is that if the gunman is fast enough, it will happen before the other utters ridiculously wrong statements.

Koury
2010-04-19, 01:47 AM
So getting an ability that shuts down most opponents for a couple of turns a day at level 1 seems trivial.

Change that to "Shuts down one single attack from one enemy per turn, for a couple turns per day at level 1, seems trivial" and we might just agree. :smallbiggrin:

Godskook
2010-04-19, 01:47 AM
You can't ignore half the rule in favor of the first part of it that gives any relevant information.

The readied action text has five relevant statements:

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.

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).

Note that the last of which references the concentration rules, making them relevant here. Also note that there's no rules in the concentration skill for a caster taking damage before his action, only during it.

So to sum up:

Most of the wording of the readied action indicates that the action triggering the readied action is already 'in progress', much like in MtG when a spell is already 'on the stack'. In other words, the spellcaster has already committed himself to casting the spell. This is also supported in concentration rules, where only damage dealt while a spell is being cast forces a concentration check, barring continuous damage.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-19, 01:59 AM
You can't ignore half the rule in favor of the first part of it that gives any relevant information.

The readied action text has five relevant statements:In response to something? Yes. In reaction to.

Action occurs before the action that triggered it. Yes. This is the timing rule.

Interrupt the other character. Yes. That makes no timing claims however, nor does it reference interrupting any specific action. Interrupting the character's TURN is just as valid.

Continues actions? Yes. He has actions. They were interrupted. Again, this has no timing relevance.

In other words? I ignore nothing. I merely use the portions relating to the action's timing when determining the timing of the action. You don't look in a cookbook when fixing a car. You use the relevant rules and steps to answer the relevant question. The only quoted line that places timing in reference to the triggering action is the one I quoted.


Note that the last of which references the concentration rules, making them relevant here. Also note that there's no rules in the concentration skill for a caster taking damage before his action, only during it.
A Specific ready action, laid out explicitly in the rules, trumps general rules for ready actions.

In other words, that's a primary source contradiction.

Yes, by the trigger for ready action, the disrupt spellcasting action occurs before the wizard casts (a readied action occurs before the action which triggered it). Regardless, a concentration check must be made (per the text you listed on the disrupt spellcasting).

NO amount of arguing you can possibly do can make anything other than "a readied action occurs just before the action that triggered it" not true. ANY attempt to say that the above statement is false is against RAW.



Most of the wording of the readied action does not indicates that the action triggering the readied action is already 'in progress', much like in MtG when a spell is already 'on the stack'. In other words, the spellcaster has already committed himself to casting the spell. This is also supported in concentration rules, where only damage dealt while a spell is being cast forces a concentration check, barring continuous damage.
Fixed that for you, and removed portions referring to rulesets that don't apply in any way to D&D.

olentu
2010-04-19, 02:16 AM
You can't ignore half the rule in favor of the first part of it that gives any relevant information.

The readied action text has five relevant statements:






Note that the last of which references the concentration rules, making them relevant here. Also note that there's no rules in the concentration skill for a caster taking damage before his action, only during it.

So to sum up:

Most of the wording of the readied action indicates that the action triggering the readied action is already 'in progress', much like in MtG when a spell is already 'on the stack'. In other words, the spellcaster has already committed himself to casting the spell. This is also supported in concentration rules, where only damage dealt while a spell is being cast forces a concentration check, barring continuous damage.

Actually the two before the last use the words "actions" and "activities" both of which are not action and so they could easily mean the rest of the actions that the character could take during the round. The fact that there is an interpretation that someone finds valid that supports both sides means that they are inconclusive.

So the passages that matter are the first two being "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."

I would say that clearly the second sentence clarifies the first so as to be explicit as to when the action is taken in relationship to the condition.


Then of course in the last one as "as determined by the concentration check result" has nothing to do with timing since it seems to be in a second sentence about how the spell may be lost not about when the action happens.

nyjastul69
2010-04-19, 02:34 AM
I'm impressed. You quote me (and the part where I say the bolded statement is not true, thus my opinion that the whole concept is a paradox) and yet you just don't read.

Kinda like Fox news.

As mentioned above, ranged sunder is designed to work with arrows.

Also, since a wizard requires components to cast spells, spotting where he gets those components is hardly difficult (unless you're disabled from the first spell he casts...wizards aren't tier 1 without reason). Even better if you immolate his robe and argue that his component pouch went poof.

I'll finish with the common sense argument: Wizards are powerful enough without giving them even more things to break the game with.

What does a news channel have anything to do with the discussion at hand?

Aside from that, how would one immolate a characters robes? The character would have to roll a nat 1 before any items carried or worn could even potentially be affected. Granted, there may be spells that affect items, but the default rule is no damage to those items unless a nat 1 is rolled for the save.

Thurbane
2010-04-19, 02:52 AM
Abrupt Jaunt doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.
Indeed. Hence, on the "on a tangent" part of my post. :smallwink:

My point was about (non-immediate/swift) SLAs provoking AoO. I don't see the logic about why they do.

The first part of my post (about readying vs. a spell versus readying vs. an SLA) was in response to the comments about being readied vs. a spell, and using that readied action to react to Abrupt Jaunt.

Killer Angel
2010-04-19, 05:14 AM
It's still a prime example of the way enemies try and do something, anything meaningful in an encounter and the wizard's just like "lolno" and effortlessly shuts them down. It doesn't change the outcome significantly, on account of the wizard's many defenses and piles of Win Buttons. It just rubs it in. Makes threats to the wizard seem even more trivial.

QFT.
One of the many wiz. strenght, is the difficulty to be hit, thanks to a ton of defensive spell (mirror image, etc. etc.).
If this isn't enough, there's contingency, that is a free life-saving button, that saved many wizards in many situations.
But contingency isn't enough, no, so we must have craft contingency and Abrupt jaunt, just to be really really really sure that the wizard will be untoucheable by anything in the universe, except, maybe, another wizard.
The easiest way to nerf AJ is to ban it.

AdalKar
2010-04-19, 07:38 AM
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.



Is it just my bad english or do you really response to something that didn't happen yet?

I would interpret it as something like:
I ready an attack if he casts a spell. Enemy casts a spell. I attack him to interrupt his casting. I don't attack him before he is casting but right after he started. So the action that I readied an attack for (enemy starts casting a spell) is happening and so I can respond to it but my attack occurs just before his action finishes. I know that is RAI and not RAW but for me it is plausible...

How about it goes like this:

Archer: I ready an attack to interrupt the next casting of that wizard.
Wizard: I start to cast a spell.
Archer: Action triggers. I shoot him in the head.
Wizard: I abrupt jaunt out of the way.
*arrow misses because target is not there*
*spell is cancelled because the wizard ceased to concentrate on the spell to use a SLA which needs concentration*
Wizard: Oh man, i didn't get hit but my spell is gone*
Archer: Good luck for me, you could have made the concentration check if i had hit you. Anyway. I ready an attack to interrupt the next casting of that wizard.
...

Is this plausible by RAW?

[Sorry if my grammar is wrong but I really need to refresh my english skills, haven't done so quite a while :smalleek: ]

Starbuck_II
2010-04-19, 08:49 AM
Is it just my bad english or do you really response to something that didn't happen yet?

How about it goes like this:

Archer: I ready an attack to interrupt the next casting of that wizard.
Wizard: I start to cast a spell.
Archer: Action triggers. I shoot him in the head.
Wizard: I abrupt jaunt out of the way.
*arrow misses because target is not there*
*spell is cancelled because the wizard ceased to concentrate on the spell to use a SLA which needs concentration*
Wizard: Oh man, i didn't get hit but my spell is gone*
Archer: Good luck for me, you could have made the concentration check if i had hit you. Anyway. I ready an attack to interrupt the next casting of that wizard.
...

Is this plausible by RAW?


Don't you need spellcraft because otherwise you don't know he is casting anything.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-19, 08:49 AM
How about it goes like this:

Archer: I ready an attack to interrupt the next casting of that wizard.
Wizard: I start to cast a spell.
Archer: Action triggers. I shoot him in the head.
Wizard: I abrupt jaunt out of the way.
*arrow misses because target is not there*
*spell is cancelled because the wizard ceased to concentrate on the spell to use a SLA which needs concentration*
Wizard: Oh man, i didn't get hit but my spell is gone*
Archer: Good luck for me, you could have made the concentration check if i had hit you. Anyway. I ready an attack to interrupt the next casting of that wizard.
...

Is this plausible by RAW?

No.

There is no text indicating that the bolded statement is true.

In fact, the closest is this:
To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you’re casting, you must make a Concentration check or lose the spell. The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC is. If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect.

SRD shows concentration check = the save DC when distracted by a nondamaging spell (the closest fit). The immediate magic variant states that the DC = 10 + 1/2 your Wizard level +int mod.

So if you're a wizard 3/Master specialist X, you get to make a concentration check, at a DC of 11+ your int modifier (Wizard 5/PRC X is 12+ int). Assume at level 8, you have a 24 Int. That's a DC 18 Concentration check.

Assuming 11 ranks in concentration at level 8, a +2 con modifier? You have an 80% chance. That's with no feats, and a rather low constitution.

So no, Abrupt Jaunt does not auto-kill any spell you cast. You get a concentration check, exactly as the rules state. And it's pathetically low.

AdalKar
2010-04-19, 09:17 AM
Don't you need spellcraft because otherwise you don't know he is casting anything.

You would need spellcraft to identify spells, right. But if the wizard isn't casting one but bluffs you that he is would need a bluff check (of undefined lenght?). Wouldn't it prevent the wizard from casting if he is using his action to bluff that he is casting while he isn't?


Varies. A Bluff check made as part of general interaction always takes at least 1 round (and is at least a full-round action), but it can take much longer if you try something elaborate.

Like I already said I don't know the rules as good as you guys. I'm just curious about how that works. ^^


snip

I knew I didn't look up enough. xD
Thanks for showing me how it is plausible :smallsmile:

Math_Mage
2010-04-19, 02:56 PM
Don't you need spellcraft because otherwise you don't know he is casting anything.

If the wizard wants to wave his hands around and do nothing while I shoot him, that's okay. Clearly, he's using his action to do something other than casting a spell, so he can't arbitrarily declare that he's changing his action after the Abrupt Jaunt.

However, this is irrelevant to the rules. The point is not whether the archer can identify the wizard's spellcasting, but whether the wizard can continue his spellcasting after Jaunting out of the way in response to an interrupt, no matter what the interrupt.


No.

There is no text indicating that the bolded statement is true.

In fact, the closest is this:

SRD shows concentration check = the save DC when distracted by a nondamaging spell (the closest fit). The immediate magic variant states that the DC = 10 + 1/2 your Wizard level +int mod.

So if you're a wizard 3/Master specialist X, you get to make a concentration check, at a DC of 11+ your int modifier (Wizard 5/PRC X is 12+ int). Assume at level 8, you have a 24 Int. That's a DC 18 Concentration check.

Assuming 11 ranks in concentration at level 8, a +2 con modifier? You have an 80% chance. That's with no feats, and a rather low constitution.

So no, Abrupt Jaunt does not auto-kill any spell you cast. You get a concentration check, exactly as the rules state. And it's pathetically low.

That's a concentration check to maintain your concentration in the face of a nondamaging spell, right? But in the case of Abrupt Jaunt, you are deciding to concentrate on a different spell in the middle of casting. You are dividing your attention while doing something that "requires your full attention" per SRD. I don't know how D&D handles this sort of multitasking, though, or even if it's possible.

On a side note, I'm not sure how you can say at one point that you are interpreting this case based on a *different* rule, and then say that your interpretation is "exactly as the rules state." That seems like a degree of confidence unwarranted by the strength of the interpretation.

Koury
2010-04-19, 03:12 PM
Benefit: You gain a spell-like ability that reflects your
chosen school of magic. Activating this ability is an immediate
action, and you can use this spell-like ability a number of
times per day equal to your Intelligence bonus (minimum
1). Its equivalent spell level is equal to one-half your wizard
level (minimum 1st), and the caster level is your wizard level.
The save DC (if any) is equal to 10 + 1/2 your wizard level +
your Int modifi er. This is an extraordinary ability.

Emphasis mine.


These abilities cannot be disrupted in combat, as spells can, and they generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity. Effects or areas that negate or disrupt magic have no effect on extraordinary abilities. They are not subject to dispelling, and they function normally in an antimagic field.

So, the way I see it, by the rules, the wizard is fine completing his spell after the jaunt. He never stopped concentration on his current spell, or cast a different spell at the same time. He just appeared somewhere else. Non-magically.

Math_Mage
2010-04-19, 03:13 PM
Emphasis mine.



So, the way I see it, by the rules, the wizard is fine completing his spell after the jaunt. He never stopped concentration on his current spell, or cast a different spell at the same time. He just appeared somewhere else. Non-magically.

Mph. Okay. Would this be the case for a (Su) ability? Could a DM looking to nerf Abrupt Jaunt use that as an appropriate barrier?

Koury
2010-04-19, 03:16 PM
Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic. Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise. Supernatural abilities may have a use limit or be usable at will, just like spell-like abilities. However, supernatural abilities do not provoke attacks of opportunity and never require Concentration checks.

I think that just makes them subject to anti-magic fields. If they don't require Concentration checks, then why couldn't you do them in the middle of a spell?

Of course, this is stepping into my opinion, as opposed to a stated rule.

Math_Mage
2010-04-19, 03:25 PM
I think that just makes them subject to anti-magic fields. If they don't require Concentration checks, then why couldn't you do them in the middle of a spell?

Of course, this is stepping into my opinion, as opposed to a stated rule.

Then...hey, what're ya gonna do, I guess. Thanks.

AdalKar
2010-04-19, 03:42 PM
A special ability is either extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural in nature.


Originally Posted by PHB II, pg 68
Benefit: You gain a spell-like ability that reflects your
chosen school of magic. Activating this ability is an immediate
action, and you can use this spell-like ability a number of
times per day equal to your Intelligence bonus (minimum
1). Its equivalent spell level is equal to one-half your wizard
level (minimum 1st), and the caster level is your wizard level.
The save DC (if any) is equal to 10 + 1/2 your wizard level +
your Int modifier. This is an extraordinary ability.

Seriously now I am really confused about RAW... :smalleek:
You gain a SLA that is a EX ???
I don't get it anymore.

Oh, okay. Immediate Magic is a SU now:

Page 68 – Benefits, Immediate Magic
[Revision]
The first sentence should read: “You gain a
supernatural ability that reflects your chosen
school of magic.” Text describing these abilities as
extraordinary abilities or spell-like abilities can be
disregarded.

TheMadLinguist
2010-04-20, 02:45 AM
Woah. They managed to call it the wrong thing twice.

Nice job editing there, guys.

2xMachina
2010-04-20, 02:51 AM
If the wizard wants to wave his hands around and do nothing while I shoot him, that's okay. Clearly, he's using his action to do something other than casting a spell, so he can't arbitrarily declare that he's changing his action after the Abrupt Jaunt.


Use Move action. Or Swift for the bluff.

Move can be used to take out a stored item. Hand wavy looks about the same to me.

Swift: I imitate a quicken spell.

Now, eat my Standard Action spell.

Amphetryon
2010-04-20, 05:50 AM
From the SRD:

Action

Varies. A Bluff check made as part of general interaction always takes at least 1 round (and is at least a full-round action), but it can take much longer if you try something elaborate. A Bluff check made to feint in combat or create a diversion to hide is a standard action. A Bluff check made to deliver a secret message doesn’t take an action; it is part of normal communication. Imitating a spell is not delivering a secret message; that means it's at least a standard action, RAW.

Math_Mage
2010-04-20, 01:21 PM
Use Move action. Or Swift for the bluff.

Move can be used to take out a stored item. Hand wavy looks about the same to me.

Swift: I imitate a quicken spell.

Now, eat my Standard Action spell.

Bluffing is a standard action under most combat circumstances. You might as well say a Rogue could wave his rapier around as a Move action and look like he's attacking. In fairness, he can do that...with Improved Feint. So where's your spent feat? There is no RAW that supports having a bluffed spell be a move or swift action, and no reason to give the wizard more action economy.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-20, 03:49 PM
Was about to mention the contradiction, lol. But, as it's a <SU> ability...


Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic. Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise. Supernatural abilities may have a use limit or be usable at will, just like spell-like abilities. However, supernatural abilities do not provoke attacks of opportunity and never require Concentration checks.
AoO's are provoked because of a focus on the spell, instead of defense.

For other SLA's, spells, and the like: While an AoO is provoked for casting, you can cast defensively, with a concentration check. This means you do not provoke, if this is successful. (Also shows a precedent for maintaining a spell and focusing on defense, or voluntarily splitting your focus without losing the spell)


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

This would mean that, if you've managed to cast it defensively, you've got it down enough to no use your full concentration on it.