PDA

View Full Version : Why does Abrupt Jaunt get so much attention?



Tyndmyr
2010-08-22, 09:40 PM
Sure, it's good. We all love it. But why does nobody discuss the other immediate magic options?

Urgent Shield(abjuration): Probably the worst one. A +2 shield bonus isn't bad, but the only advantage this has over Shield, a level 1 spell, is that it's an immediate action. Inferior in every other way. The fact that they neglected to specify a duration is curious, though. This is the only one I might consider keeping my familiar instead of taking.

Glimpse Peril(divination): +2 insight bonus to next saving throw. In conjunction with spellcraft and the comparative rarity of insight bonuses, this is pretty useful. It would be a rare day that you'd need to make more saves than you have uses of this.

Instant Daze(enchantment): Like the cantrip, but your HD or less. Can be used only vs melee attacks, which lowers the benefit, and has a save...but it is good at shutting down full attacks, and melee tend to have weak will saves. Solid defensive option.

Counterfire(evocation): I like this one. Ranged attacks or spells that target you...not get to you(yay windwall), but merely target you, firing off 1d6force dmg/3 wiz levels. Make sure your DM counts PrCs advancing wizard levels first, tho. The wording indicates this may not be certain, but this is a great way to boost action economy without using feats. Handy for a blaster. Damage ain't great, but if it's used judiciously, it can save you spells.

Brief Figment(illusion): mini-mirror image(one copy). Very handy. No more needs to be said.

Cursed Glance(necromancy): Works on any attack or spell, and provides a -2 untyped penalty to AC and saving throws. The downside, gives them a will save. While not huge, it's essentially always applicable, and it stacks with everything. They also neglected to specify duration on this one. So, while not actually powerful on any one use, you won't regret taking it.

Most of them are superior to a generic familiar at any rate, and most work nicely with at least one common build type for their specialization. It's a shame they don't seem to get much attention.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-22, 09:45 PM
Mostly because of when it is useful. Insight bonuses don't stack with similar spells. actual teleport would require a concentration check (tho benign transposition with an unconscious enemy is fun against swallowers), damage is generally of little use (seriously, a sword swing replaces that), while the abrupt jaunt is a surefire way to get out of melee anytime.

Reluctance
2010-08-22, 09:52 PM
"All effects last until the start of your next turn unless otherwise noted." That's the duration for Cursed Glance.

And I think you're forgetting that immediate actions can interrupt other actions. Teleporting 10' is nice. Teleporting 10' to negate an enemy's full attack, or teleporting 10' to remove yourself from the area of a fireball, handily beats what the alternatives can offer.

DragoonWraith
2010-08-22, 09:56 PM
They're all decent (except the Abjuration one), but Abrupt Jaunt is a "no, actually, I don't get hit" however many times per day. Period. That's insane. There's no attack roll (as with the Shield), no save (as with the Daze), there's no chance (as with the Image), there's no way for a target to defend against it (cuz it's on yourself). Total immunity to any effect that targets where you are (instead of you, personally), X times per day. That's really good.

W3bDragon
2010-08-22, 09:59 PM
Abrupt jaunt can have massive effect on combat for such a low level effect. It can interrupt a full attack reliably. It can move you out of range of spells or other area effects. On the flip side, a 1st level wizard/high level martial or roguish class character with Abrupt jaunt can full attack people up to 15 feet away by jaunting and then taking a 5-ft step. It could even be 20 feet away with the training that let's you take a 10-ft step.

Abrupt Jaunt used in any of those circumstances has a substantial effect on the course of battle that easily overshadows a few bonuses or negatives here and there.

On a personal note, my illusionist/rogue character survived many encounters by the skin of his teeth only due to Brief Figment, so I like the others as well.

Eldariel
2010-08-22, 10:11 PM
To simplify, the big thing is you negate the need for rolling. Sure, others may help you get beneficial results from a die roll but a Wizard's survival shouldn't be dependent on the dice; with Abrupt Jaunt, you can simply ignore whatever was going on and move on never once being at risk of anything.

TooManyBadgers
2010-08-22, 10:36 PM
Familiars are amazing. Illusion and Transmutation are kind of okay at low levels, the rest are downright weak.

Tael
2010-08-22, 10:41 PM
Probably because it's the epitome of why people love/hate the wizard. The ability to just say "lol no" to pretty much any attack is both devastating and viscerally powerful. If there were a roll, it wouldn't attract so much attention, even if the roll was in your favor. The only other ability I can think of that does that is Wings of Cover, which is also ridiculously overpowered, and Sorcerer only.

Private-Prinny
2010-08-22, 10:55 PM
The only other ability I can think of that does that is Wings of Cover, which is also ridiculously overpowered, and Sorcerer only.

Actually, Abrupt Jaunt is even better than that. Wings of Cover can only defend against targeted attacks, and costs you a 2nd level spell slot. Abrupt Jaunt doesn't have either of those drawbacks.

Soranar
2010-08-22, 11:10 PM
abrupt jaunt is good enough to warrant a 1 level wizard dip for melee characters

it's just that good

none of the other options you mentioned ever warrant the same thought

Tyndmyr
2010-08-22, 11:22 PM
They're all decent (except the Abjuration one), but Abrupt Jaunt is a "no, actually, I don't get hit" however many times per day. Period. That's insane. There's no attack roll (as with the Shield), no save (as with the Daze), there's no chance (as with the Image), there's no way for a target to defend against it (cuz it's on yourself). Total immunity to any effect that targets where you are (instead of you, personally), X times per day. That's really good.

Yes, you can preempt an action. You cannot, however, undo an action that has already been done. So, an archer fires an arrow at you. You move outta the way, great. You can't do so post-hit, though. IE, you use the ability before the attack is rolled, etc.

Im not saying Abrupt Jaunt isn't good...it is, and Ive used it before to good effect, but there are a number of times when it isn't total immunity. For instance, when you are unaware of an attack coming until it hits. Or it's something that targets an area, but too large of an area. It's good for avoiding small area targets sure, but thats rather more specific than it's often advertised.

To those who advertise it as freedom from melee, that ignores the problem of reach. A spiked chain user who charges you is still going to be uncomfortably close. Using it merely to avoid melee is also expensive in terms of uses. They're limited, and melee attacks are common. There are plenty of more long lasting defences against melee.

Oh, good catch on the default duration, btw. Mmm. No doubt there's a way for incantatrix's to abuse these, though.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2010-08-22, 11:28 PM
Yes, you can preempt an action. You cannot, however, undo an action that has already been done. So, an archer fires an arrow at you. You move outta the way, great. You can't do so post-hit, though. IE, you use the ability before the attack is rolled, etc.

Actually, RAW, you don't have to. Here's the important part:


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. Casting feather fall is an immediate action (instead of a free action, as stated in the spell description in the Player's Handbook), since the spell can be cast at any time.

Since there are abilities that trigger between a successful attack roll and dealing damage, that means that, by the rules, there is a time there where abilities can be used. Ergo, you can Abrupt Jaunt out of a successful attack.

Zeful
2010-08-22, 11:34 PM
Actually, Abrupt Jaunt is even better than that. Wings of Cover can only defend against targeted attacks, and costs you a 2nd level spell slot. Abrupt Jaunt doesn't have either of those drawbacks.

This is one of the reasons, along with the fact that it is an effective counter to easily 1/3-to-1/2 of 3.5's printed material, that it should never be allowed. :smallannoyed:

Mongoose87
2010-08-22, 11:49 PM
I had an Abrupt Jaunt Conjurer, once. I hated it. It felt like I was cheating.

Wonton
2010-08-23, 12:02 AM
I specifically told my DM something like "Hey, I'm thinking of taking Abrupt Jaunt, here's what it is, here's why it's broken, etc, what do you think?" and his reply to me was basically "Bring it on, bitch."

I should be very worried, shouldn't I :smalleek:

Tael
2010-08-23, 12:17 AM
I specifically told my DM something like "Hey, I'm thinking of taking Abrupt Jaunt, here's what it is, here's why it's broken, etc, what do you think?" and his reply to me was basically "Bring it on, bitch."

I should be very worried, shouldn't I :smalleek:

Nah, it just means that you should PrC into Incantatrix as soon as possible.

Gralamin
2010-08-23, 12:21 AM
I should be very worried, shouldn't I :smalleek:

Not all that much. It could in fact be very enjoyable - some DMs are perfectly capable of challenging optimized characters. However, it is more likely that something terrible will happen. Good luck.

Fax Celestis
2010-08-23, 12:25 AM
Yes, you can preempt an action. You cannot, however, undo an action that has already been done. So, an archer fires an arrow at you. You move outta the way, great. You can't do so post-hit, though. IE, you use the ability before the attack is rolled, etc.

Actually, yes it does. An immediate action, like an AoO, immediately (see what I did there) takes place. If you teleport 10' out of a meleers threat range, he can't hit you anymore.

balistafreak
2010-08-23, 12:27 AM
Nah, it just means that you should PrC into Incantatrix as soon as possible.

LET THE ARMS RACE BEGIN!!!!1!!1!!11onehundredeleven

But yeah, Abrupt Jaunt Wizard is insane. Other choices are "good enough" on the absolute scale of power (compared to taking a familiar), but Abrupt Jaunt is simply INSANE.

Immediate action = get-out-of-most-jails-Int-modifier-times-a-day card. And you're a Wizard... sooooooo...

And while it's not 100% effective, it is far, far more effective than any of the other choices. It doesn't need to be 100% effective to be awesome.

Now if I ever play a Wizard, I will make it an Abrupt Jaunting Conjurer, because I hate playing suboptimal characters (as an all-A student anything less than perfection feels lazy :smalltongue:), but I will only ever play a Wizard in the most Bats--- Insane! campaign ever.

... or if someone offers me cookies.

imperialspectre
2010-08-23, 12:29 AM
It's not that hard to challenge a character with Abrupt Jaunt, provided that the rest of the party are things like a DMM-using cleric, a Wildshape-using druid, an action-economy-abusing psion or sorcerer, or an Archivist Archer. It's only hard to do so when the Abrupt Jaunt Wizard is teamed up with a moderate-optimization Barbarian (for example), or any type of Monk that doesn't involve Ardent or Ur-Priest or both.

Olo Demonsbane
2010-08-23, 12:31 AM
I had an Abrupt Jaunt Conjurer, once. I hated it. It felt like I was cheating.

My 8th level character had Persisted Greater Mirror Image, Persisted Displacement, Persisted Fly, 26 AC, 90+ hp, and Abrupt Jaunt 11/day. Along with Full Wizard Casting. ...I don't think I got hit once. And we were fighting EL 13-15 encounters.

Be nice to your DM. Don't do this.

Ashram
2010-08-23, 12:41 AM
The one thing people forget about Abrupt Jaunt and immediate actions is that while yes, it's absolutely friggin' busted, an immediate action counts as your swift action for the next turn, which means you can only Abrupt Jaunt once a round and ONLY if you can defend against the attack normally. (So no metagaming about teleporting away just as an invisible assassin tries to death attack you.) So, say you're a fighter and that friggin' conjurer warps away while cackling madly, wasting your turn. All you have to do is hope you have an archer right next to you, smile, and say, "Let him have it."

Mikeavelli
2010-08-23, 12:41 AM
Not all that much. It could in fact be very enjoyable - some DMs are perfectly capable of challenging optimized characters. However, it is more likely that something terrible will happen. Good luck.

For many abilities (Abrupt Jaunt, the Celerity line, etc.) I impose challenge on optimized characters by letting the PC's know that "Any trick they use, they'll eventually see the NPC's using."

This is enough to keep them from breaking the game.

Math_Mage
2010-08-23, 06:50 AM
For many abilities (Abrupt Jaunt, the Celerity line, etc.) I impose challenge on optimized characters by letting the PC's know that "Any trick they use, they'll eventually see the NPC's using."

This is enough to keep them from breaking the game.

Heh. Our DM pulled a preemptive strike on us there. Third major encounter involved a Conjurer with AJ. I was playing a Rogue. Not being able to hit him was frustrating.

peacenlove
2010-08-23, 06:57 AM
For many abilities (Abrupt Jaunt, the Celerity line, etc.) I impose challenge on optimized characters by letting the PC's know that "Any trick they use, they'll eventually see the NPC's using."

This is enough to keep them from breaking the game.

Dimensional anchor / lock and (houseruled to deny swift-immediate actions because by RAW it is unspecified) slow takes care of those 2 offenders.
For every offense in D&D there is a defense (at least for the DM).

Also the shadowcaster mystery flicker allows immediate action teleport every round however it is slightly more strategic in nature.

However i must ask if you target a ranged attack at a person and he uses an immediate action to teleport and he is within range does the ray/projectile still miss?

EDIT: To saph below: please don't hurt me :smalleek: I was just asking as a dm :smallbiggrin:

Saph
2010-08-23, 06:59 AM
It's busted because it's an ACF that's a more powerful defence than most high-level spells. It really is that good.

It's not infallible, though - while it's amazing against melee attacks, it doesn't do much good against ranged ones. Yes, you can Abrupt Jaunt when you see that spellcaster start a spell aimed at you, but unless you get out of range or put a solid object between you and your attacker, you're still a valid target. It also only works once per round.

That said, even though it's not infallible, it's still really really effective. I usually ban it when I'm DMing, partly because it's simply too powerful for a 1st-level ability, and partly because I don't want to deal with the arguments from munchkins trying to claim that an arrow should miss because they AJed in between it being fired and hitting.

Roc Ness
2010-08-23, 07:04 AM
I should be very worried, shouldn't I :smalleek:

Beware gishes that can cast (and are effective under) antimagic fields.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-23, 07:06 AM
Beware gishes that can cast (and are effective under) antimagic fields.

Extraordinary Spell Aim is such a beautiful thing.

Rainbownaga
2010-08-23, 07:21 AM
All you have to do is hope you have an archer right next to you, smile, and say, "Let him have it."

How does teleporting out of range interrupt an archer? Shouldn't the archer still be able to hit you even if you teleport to a different location (assuming it's still within LoE and LoS)?

Jack_Simth
2010-08-23, 07:24 AM
Yes, you can preempt an action. You cannot, however, undo an action that has already been done. So, an archer fires an arrow at you. You move outta the way, great. You can't do so post-hit, though. IE, you use the ability before the attack is rolled, etc.

Ah, have you ever seen someone who figures out what he was going to have the character do before his turn rolls around, then rolls the entire set of dice for his action as he's declaring it?

Have you ever engaged in Play by Post, where you find out the entirety of a round's actions from a person appear as a single unit?

If you require immediate actions to be declared before the thing that causes someone to want to use an immediate action, things not related to the actual mechanics of the game, or stuff that happens in-game, causes immediate actions to be useless.


Im not saying Abrupt Jaunt isn't good...it is, and Ive used it before to good effect, but there are a number of times when it isn't total immunity. For instance, when you are unaware of an attack coming until it hits. Or it's something that targets an area, but too large of an area. It's good for avoiding small area targets sure, but thats rather more specific than it's often advertised.

For the most part, in terms of area spells, it gets you out of area spells where you're not the center.


To those who advertise it as freedom from melee, that ignores the problem of reach. A spiked chain user who charges you is still going to be uncomfortably close. Using it merely to avoid melee is also expensive in terms of uses. They're limited, and melee attacks are common. There are plenty of more long lasting defences against melee.

Hate to break it to you, but a charge must be to the closest legal square from which you can attack the target, and also must be in a straight line (well, unless certain PrC's are involved, anyway). Which means if your opponent charges you, it doesn't matter if he has reach - you just hop 10 feet out of the way, at least one square of which is diagonal. The counter is for someone Large with a Spiked Chain to walk up to you prior to attacking. Which won't be very common, unless your DM is trying hard to hurt you, specifically.

And if you have to be specifically countered to be harmed, then you're using a broken ability.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-23, 07:27 AM
How does teleporting out of range interrupt an archer? Shouldn't the archer still be able to hit you even if you teleport to a different location (assuming it's still within LoE and LoS)?

There is some confusion on whether or not you can jaunt between the arrow being shot and it reaching you. Personally I don't let the jaunt protect you from an attack if you are still in reach of it (though if it resulted in going into a second range increment the arrow would lose some ab as normal), but I don't know if there's a raw specific on it.

Saph
2010-08-23, 07:27 AM
However i must ask if you target a ranged attack at a person and he uses an immediate action to teleport and he is within range does the ray/projectile still miss?

EDIT: To saph below: please don't hurt me :smalleek: I was just asking as a dm :smallbiggrin:

Heh. :smallwink:

Well, there are three answers to "I Abrupt Jaunt away from the ranged attack": the logical answer, the balance answer, and the RAW answer.

Logical answer: D&D already has a mechanic for 'reacting fast enough to avoid an attack'; it's called your armour class. If you can't spot a ray in time to avoid it, it doesn't matter whether you were trying to dodge it by casting a spell or by moving. If you've already got a mechanic to represent dodging, use it.

Balance answer: Abrupt Jaunt's extremely good already. If something's already extremely good, there's no reason to rule grey areas in its favour.

If the person insists on RAW above all, though . . .

RAW answer: There's no mechanic in D&D for 'moving out of the way of an attack.' The attacker declares his attack, checks line of sight and range, and makes his attack roll. If the attack roll is a hit and the defender isn't benefiting from anything that can specifically force a miss (like concealment), then the attack hits, full stop.

So if an archer fires an arrow and you declare that you're going to Abrupt Jaunt away after the arrow is fired, then the arrow does a right-angle turn in midair and hits you anyway. No, that doesn't make sense, but that's what you get when you use RAW.

PId6
2010-08-23, 08:00 AM
Heh. Our DM pulled a preemptive strike on us there. Third major encounter involved a Conjurer with AJ. I was playing a Rogue. Not being able to hit him was frustrating.
That's when you bust out those scrolls of Anticipate Teleportation. :smallamused:

Kyrthain
2010-08-23, 09:08 AM
I think another reason for its popularity above the other ones is that it's associated with conjuration, the favored school of optimizers.

awa
2010-08-23, 09:24 AM
i always pictured it that the fighter gets ready to swing and then you teleport before he makes an attack roll and once he actually swings (makes the attack roll its to late)

Cyrion
2010-08-23, 10:17 AM
I think you've got a pretty clear case of being able to abrupt jaunt out of the way of an arrow being fired at you. However, that leaves you having to deal with the second, third and fourth arrows that are sure to be following.

DanReiv
2010-08-23, 01:08 PM
Bottom line : It helps getting out of the way of everything your average wizard hates.

That is grapple and full attacks. Many times in a day.

Actually, one of my player is a wizard gish, and he uses it many times for offensive purpose.

And we did tone it down to swift action, not immediate. It's still silly.

Familiars are good, others ACF are good. This one is gold. So shiny it'll probably end in the no-no bin for the next characters/campaign.

Killer Angel
2010-08-23, 01:29 PM
abrupt jaunt is good enough to warrant a 1 level wizard dip for melee characters

it's just that good


Probably, AJ is good enough to warrant a 1 lev dip for almost all classes.
It's cheesy almost in the same way as Craft contingent spell, it's an unnecessary brick section of bricks in the wall of Invulnerable Wizards.

Frosty
2010-08-23, 01:37 PM
It's powerful enough to warrant losing one entire caster level over.

Wonton
2010-08-23, 01:52 PM
On the topic of AJ-ing out of range of a ranged attack...

1) What if someone 75 feet away shoots you with a light crossbow, and you AJ 10 feet back. Will he now take a -2 to his attack?

2) What if you're 20 feet away from a 1st-level Sorcerer who casts Ray of Enfeeblement at you? If you AJ 10 feet back, you'll be out of range. Does the ray still hit? Does the ray go off but not reach you? Does the Sorcerer use up a spell slot or not?

Barlen
2010-08-23, 02:09 PM
On the topic of AJ-ing out of range of a ranged attack...

1) What if someone 75 feet away shoots you with a light crossbow, and you AJ 10 feet back. Will he now take a -2 to his attack?

2) What if you're 20 feet away from a 1st-level Sorcerer who casts Ray of Enfeeblement at you? If you AJ 10 feet back, you'll be out of range. Does the ray still hit? Does the ray go off but not reach you? Does the Sorcerer use up a spell slot or not?

Evil DM response: Roll a spot check to see that they are attacking you (as opposed to another party member etc) :smallbiggrin:

Actually I would probably rule it that you can take an immediate action before the attack (before I roll) or after the attack (after I tell you the results and you are either hit or missed). But not "during". Of course you can AJ to a place that has cover/concealment before the attack.

Endarire
2010-08-23, 05:19 PM
What are your experiences with Abrupt Jaunt as a swift action?

Saph
2010-08-23, 05:30 PM
What are your experiences with Abrupt Jaunt as a swift action?

Still pretty good. Anklets of Translocation do the same thing, except only twice per day (instead of your Int modifier) and they're considered one of the best value for money items in the game.

Endarire
2010-08-23, 05:40 PM
Abrupt Jaunt means never having to agonize over escaping from prison. (Assuming AJ works, that is.)

Draz74
2010-08-23, 05:44 PM
Still pretty good. Anklets of Translocation do the same thing, except only twice per day (instead of your Int modifier) and they're considered one of the best value for money items in the game.

True, but that's partly because they're really cheap. :smallsmile:

Tyndmyr
2010-08-23, 06:35 PM
For many abilities (Abrupt Jaunt, the Celerity line, etc.) I impose challenge on optimized characters by letting the PC's know that "Any trick they use, they'll eventually see the NPC's using."

This is enough to keep them from breaking the game.

Oh, out of sheer paranoia, I *always* carry counters to my own tricks. All of them, all the time. I've seen enough doppleganger fights to consider how best to take myself down. Hell, if you're an optimizer at all, you'll want to consider this if only to know what tactics to be wary of.

Doesn't mean you should break the game, but hey.

My biggest use for Abrupt Jaunt has always been pure mobility. I need to alert someone a coupla floors down asap? Awesome. Drop a level before my turn, run, drop another level afterward, talk as a free action. Or port through bars on a gate. In short, using it as a short range teleport, not as attack avoidance.

There are many ways for a wizard to avoid attacks. Comparable movement abilities are exceedingly rare at level 1, though, and even later, it allows you to conserve uses of fairly high level spells.

Eldariel
2010-08-23, 07:14 PM
Oh, out of sheer paranoia, I *always* carry counters to my own tricks. All of them, all the time. I've seen enough doppleganger fights to consider how best to take myself down. Hell, if you're an optimizer at all, you'll want to consider this if only to know what tactics to be wary of.

Doesn't mean you should break the game, but hey.

My biggest use for Abrupt Jaunt has always been pure mobility. I need to alert someone a coupla floors down asap? Awesome. Drop a level before my turn, run, drop another level afterward, talk as a free action. Or port through bars on a gate. In short, using it as a short range teleport, not as attack avoidance.

There are many ways for a wizard to avoid attacks. Comparable movement abilities are exceedingly rare at level 1, though, and even later, it allows you to conserve uses of fairly high level spells.

On level 1 tho, it's by far the best attack avoidance available without digging up higher level abilities. But I also agree on the awesomeness of its other uses; I've used it on an Unseen Seer to teleport into cover breaking line of sight and leaving opponent with no idea where I went. It's also great for teleporting into hiding place for Hide, again leaving opponent no trace to follow other than "he vanished".

Hell, it's not a spell so they can't even Spellcraft it directly; they don't know if I'm invisible, shapechanged into something small, if I was an illusion to begin with, or if I'm gone - and if they determine I'm gone they still have no idea on the limitations of the ability I used and thus they have no idea where I've gone to. 5 uses per day is like 5 extra slots on level 1; it's like starting the game with 8-10 spells instead of the normal 3-5.

jiriku
2010-08-23, 07:16 PM
I would have to disagree with Saph. There are six arguments around Abrupt Jaunt and ranged attacks, not three. She has presented the three arguments against, but for each of them there is also an argument in favor (otherwise it would be an agreement instead of an argument :smallbiggrin:)

Logical: Taking an immediate action in response to a ranged attack is very similar to taking an immediate action in response to a melee attack, except that you have MORE TIME to respond in many cases because the attack must travel further to reach you.

Balance: Whether something is "too good" depends on context. In some high-op games, this feature is nothing special. In others, a wizard incompetently played by a newbie player may struggle to keep up with his more experienced and skilled buddies, and the DM might actually suggest AJ as an easy way for the newb to improve his character's survivability..

RAW:

Immediate Action

An immediate action is very similar to a swift action, but can be performed at any time — even if it's not your turn.

The SRD description of immediate action makes a unilateral statement: any time, without limitation or restriction. Specific trumps general, but there are many specific immediate effects take place after an attack is declared, targeted, or performed, and that foil or influence the effect they respond to.


For my two cents, logical reasoning and RAW both agree that Abrupt Jaunt is valid against ranged attacks. Balance tells me I should consider carefully whether the RAW Abrupt Jaunt is appropriate for my campaign, and if the answer is no, I should nerf or ban it as appropriate.

2xMachina
2010-08-24, 01:00 AM
For swift action...

There is Dimension Hop off the Duskblade list? Or for Psionics, Freedom mantle.

Kyeudo
2010-08-24, 01:50 AM
The Arena I run has hashed out how we handle the RAW implications of Abrupt Jaunt. It goes something like this:

1. An attack is not specified to take any length of time. All evidence (people acting on the same initiative count and similar) points towards it taking no time at all.
2. Since an attack does not take any time at all to complete, an attack is either not been made or has already been made. There is no such thing as an attack "in progress."
3. Since an attack can't be "in progress", Abrupt Jaunt can not be used at that time.
4. If Abrupt Jaunt is used before the attack is made, the attack is made with the character in the new position. This may prevent melee attacks and ranged attacks with fixed ranges, but does not prevent most ranged attacks.
5. If Abrupt Jaunt is used after the attack is made, the ability has no affect on the attack at all.

Of course, if your game prefers being able to use Abrupt Jaunt to counter any attack, enjoy playing your way and ignore me. I'm just posting the logic that has managed to hold against the best rules lawyers the Arena has yet produced.

Saph
2010-08-24, 03:53 AM
The SRD description of immediate action makes a unilateral statement: any time, without limitation or restriction. Specific trumps general, but there are many specific immediate effects take place after an attack is declared, targeted, or performed, and that foil or influence the effect they respond to.

Abrupt Jaunt, however, isn't one of them. It doesn't say that it foils or influences an attack, which means, by RAW, it doesn't. No leg to stand on there.

Oslecamo
2010-08-24, 04:48 AM
Abrupt Jaunt, however, isn't one of them. It doesn't say that it foils or influences an attack, which means, by RAW, it doesn't. No leg to stand on there.

Exactly like I interpret it. Abrupt jaunt all you like, if you're still whitin range, line of sight and effect the attack will hit you. And i you abrupt jaunt melee dudes they get to attack something else in range or move closer.

huttj509
2010-08-24, 05:48 AM
First question: Does Robilar's Gambit allow you to strike a charging opponent before he actually connects (since AoO come before the provoking act unless stated otherwise)?

Reason: That indicates to me the idea that you can tell someone is making an attack at you, before they actually hit. The charge is specifically to indicate separation between the movement part and the attack part of the charge.

How I would rule Abrupt Jaunt:

DM: The NPC/Monster attacks you.
PC: Before he does that I AJ.
Solution: PC is now in a new spot. If he's still in attack range, and the NPC can see him, the NPC can simply reaim the attack (for example, if you just hop to the other side of the NPC, won't do much against a melee attack). This new attack may have range penalties while the first did not.

Spells: Now I'd actually put this in a little different category. It can be hard to tell what spell someone is casting. I'd require a spellcraft check to recognize the spell and determine the target. In this case, the PC can then preemptively AJ, but the spell is still cast. If the PC is still a valid target for the spell (in range, line of sight, etc.) it is still cast on the PC. If the PC is no longer a valid target, the spell is expended with no effect (the AJ came as the spell was charging up, so to speak), unless tyhere were other targets, targeted an area the PC happened to be in, etc.

So with the earlier Ray question, if the ray had a 20 foot range, the PC made the spellcraft check, and AJed to 30 feet away, the spell is expended with no effect. However, if it was a fireball, it still hits the targeted square, the PC just might no longer be in the blast radius.

I would strongly consider a still/silent spell to be able to negate the AJ ability under the argument of "you don't know it's coming", similarly with a surprise round attack, that sort of thing.

PId6
2010-08-24, 09:02 AM
Still pretty good. Anklets of Translocation do the same thing, except only twice per day (instead of your Int modifier) and they're considered one of the best value for money items in the game.
Anklet of Translocation requires LoE and LoS to work, while Abrupt Jaunt doesn't, so even as a swift action, Abrupt Jaunt is much better.

Saph
2010-08-24, 09:09 AM
Anklet of Translocation requires LoE and LoS to work, while Abrupt Jaunt doesn't, so even as a swift action, Abrupt Jaunt is much better.

Yep, that too. Blinking through a wall or door makes it pretty hard for an opponent to reach you.

DragoonWraith
2010-08-24, 09:13 AM
Abrupt Jaunt, however, isn't one of them. It doesn't say that it foils or influences an attack, which means, by RAW, it doesn't. No leg to stand on there.
It doesn't have to be - the ones that specifically say that are not making exceptions to a normal rule, they're simply advising when it would be used. By RAW, immediate actions can be used at any time - including mid-swing/flight after the target has rolled their attack roll.

Saph
2010-08-24, 09:48 AM
It doesn't have to be - the ones that specifically say that are not making exceptions to a normal rule, they're simply advising when it would be used. By RAW, immediate actions can be used at any time - including mid-swing/flight after the target has rolled their attack roll.

Well, sure. By RAW, you can use an immediate action mid-attack. That doesn't mean that it actually achieves anything.

So if an archer is shooting a conjurer standing in an open field, the sequence of events would go like this:

1) Archer declares standard action attack on at conjurer.
2) Archer checks LoS, LoE, and range.
3) Archer makes attack roll.
4) Archer checks attack roll against conjurer's AC.
5) If attack roll >= AC, archer rolls damage.

Now, by RAW, the conjurer can do his Abrupt Jaunt any time he likes in the middle of that, but all that means is that he'll get hit in a different square from the one he started in. Newton's laws of motion say that if you wait until an arrow has been fired at you and then move away, the arrow won't hit you. RAW in D&D says that if attack roll >= AC, you get hit, full stop. If Abrupt Jaunt said something like "you can make an attack miss by doing XYZ", then you could use it to make an attack miss by doing XYZ. It doesn't, so you can't.

Physics and RAW don't mix. You can try to adjudicate an action by common sense (work out whether the conjurer should be able to see the attack coming in time to dodge it) or by RAW (the conjurer can dodge at any time he likes and it makes absolutely no difference), but trying to combine the two (I use a commoner railgun to fire a projectile at lightspeed!) just does not work.

jiriku
2010-08-24, 10:07 AM
Abrupt Jaunt, however, isn't one of them. It doesn't say that it foils or influences an attack, which means, by RAW, it doesn't. No leg to stand on there.

Saph, I don't take offense, but telling someone their argument has no leg to stand on after they spend several paragraphs supporting their position could be interpreted as rude. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but, y'know, FYI. It's easy to come across as dismissive and insulting in forum posts when you don't mean to.

To clarify, my purpose is not to open a multi-sided debate with three of you at once. Arguing with people on the internet, especially when their minds are made up, is fruitless.

However, someone asked what the argument was about, and your response was essentially:


"Well, there are three sides to the argument, 1. people who disagree with me are wrong, and here's why. 2. people who disagree with me are definitely wrong, and here's another reason why. 3. people who disagree with me are still wrong and here are more reasons why."

I can tell you believe in your position! However, you gave your questioner a one-sided answer. I gave the other side. Now people can get the entire debate in a nutshell and go make up their minds for themselves. And there was great rejoicing.

Saph
2010-08-24, 10:29 AM
Saph, I don't take offense, but telling someone their argument has no leg to stand on after they spend several paragraphs supporting their position could be interpreted as rude. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but, y'know, FYI. It's easy to come across as dismissive and insulting in forum posts when you don't mean to.

Sorry - wasn't intending for it to come across that way. I just think the 'debate' is fairly one-sided. There's no RAW support for the argument that Abrupt Jaunting causes an attack to miss - yes, you can do it in the middle of an attack, but since the attack is targeting your character, not your square, it's still targeting your character whether you AJ or not.

To argue that, by RAW, Abrupt Jaunt causes ranged attacks to miss, you need to be able to point to a paragraph somewhere in the rules which says something along the lines of "if you move away in the middle of someone's attack the attack misses". As far as I know, there isn't one.

jiriku
2010-08-24, 10:59 AM
And for me, the idea that Abrupt Jaunt can't dodge an arrow conjures up this absurd mental image of a wizard teleporting out of the way of the arrow, only to see the arrow adjust course in mid-flight to hit him, like the D&D equivalent of the Patriot Arrow from Robin Hood: Men in Tights.

And arguments of "once the arrow has been fired, it's too late to jaunt" just doesn't seem convincing to me. Depending on range and bow speed, you're an arrow has a flight time to target of up to 5 seconds at extreme range (yes, I killed quite a few catgirls to figure out that number). Immediate actions are supposed to be as brief as free actions, and a free action can be as small as speaking a word or thinking a thought. And to me "can be performed at any time" just doesn't seem negotiable.

I just couldn't, with a straight face, tell my players "no, you don't have enough time."

Saph
2010-08-24, 11:10 AM
And arguments of "once the arrow has been fired, it's too late to jaunt" just doesn't seem convincing to me. Depending on range and bow speed, you're an arrow has a flight time to target of up to 5 seconds at extreme range (yes, I killed quite a few catgirls to figure out that number).

Yup. And by the same logic, it should be trivially easy to dodge a long-range arrow just by sidestepping (which takes considerably less than 1 second).

You're right that it doesn't make much sense to tell the wizard player "no, you don't have enough time". But I think that if I was playing in your game, I'd get a bit annoyed if the wizard player got to use logic to dodge attacks and nobody else did. If the wizard can Abrupt Jaunt in 5 seconds, I think it's pretty reasonable to say that any other character can use the same length of time to duck.


And for me, the idea that Abrupt Jaunt can't dodge an arrow conjures up this absurd mental image of a wizard teleporting out of the way of the arrow, only to see the arrow adjust course in mid-flight to hit him, like the D&D equivalent of the Patriot Arrow from Robin Hood: Men in Tights.

Which was pretty much the image I was using in my first post - the arrow doing a right angle to hit its target. Of course it's absurd, but that's what you get when you use strict RAW.

Zeful
2010-08-24, 11:15 AM
And for me, the idea that Abrupt Jaunt can't dodge an arrow conjures up this absurd mental image of a wizard teleporting out of the way of the arrow, only to see the arrow adjust course in mid-flight to hit him, like the D&D equivalent of the Patriot Arrow from Robin Hood: Men in Tights.

And arguments of "once the arrow has been fired, it's too late to jaunt" just doesn't seem convincing to me. Depending on range and bow speed, you're an arrow has a flight time to target of up to 5 seconds at extreme range (yes, I killed quite a few catgirls to figure out that number). Immediate actions are supposed to be as brief as free actions, and a free action can be as small as speaking a word or thinking a thought. And to me "can be performed at any time" just doesn't seem negotiable.

I just couldn't, with a straight face, tell my players "no, you don't have enough time."

The Rules don't simulate that though. So if you Abrubt Jaunted anywhere where you can still be targeted the attack hits. You can cause the attack to miss by Jaunting out of Range of certain attacks (like outside of maximum range, or another Range incriment and hoping the -2 is enough) but once the attack is rolled that's it, it's either hit or not.

You can house-rule it to do so, making the already stupidly-powerful ability even more powerful, but by RAW, Abrubt Jaunt can only be used to prevent the initial targeting rather than an attack mid flight (because there is no mechanic for attacks in between targeting and the attack's resolution).

Draz74
2010-08-24, 11:24 AM
Thing is, there are lots of defensive immediate action abilities that become useless if they can't prevent an attack that triggers them. So shouldn't the timing of Abrupt Jaunt immediate actions work the same way as all those others? It is unfortunate that it pretty much works automatically, rather than requiring you to roll to negate an attack ... but I don't think there's much room for the argument that the following is how the ability works, if that's what anyone is arguing:


DM: The archer fires an arrow at you, Wizard.
Wizard player: OK, I Abrupt Jaunt to the side here.
DM: Well, you can do that, but since I already announced the attack, you take [roll] 9 damage before you teleport. But now you're over there, yeah.

Nope. Immediate actions just don't work that way ... there's too much precedent.

Incidentally, rather than "the arrow suddenly leaps in a right angle mid-flight!" thing, I'd personally fluff an arrow attack hitting a just-Jaunted wizard as the archer reacting mid-fire to re-aim his bow in a new direction. It's like a shoot out in soccer, really ...

Saph
2010-08-24, 11:33 AM
Yeah, the way I've generally run it when I've been DMing the Neverending Dungeon (and other games) is that the main time you use Abrupt Jaunt is in response to a declaration of attack. The archer aims his bow, the giant swings his club, the spellcaster starts casting a spell (and you Spellcraft it), and in response to that you declare your Abrupt Jaunt. If you've played smart and positioned yourself right, you can Jaunt out or range or out of LoE of the attack. If not, well, better hope the attack roll's low.

Zeful
2010-08-24, 11:36 AM
Thing is, there are lots of defensive immediate action abilities that become useless if they can't prevent an attack that triggers them. So shouldn't the timing of Abrupt Jaunt immediate actions work the same way as all those others? It is unfortunate that it pretty much works automatically, rather than requiring you to roll to negate an attack ... but I don't think there's much room for the argument that the following is how the ability works, if that's what anyone is arguing:Does Abrupt Jaunt specify that you get to move before the action that triggers it? Do you realize how little that helps from a rules perspective? If you jaunt after the attack has already been rolled then it's already hit you and Jaunting's useless unless Abrupt Jaunt specifies that it can be used to negate otherwise successful attacks. If you Jaunt before it's been rolled and you are no longer a valid target (Jaunting behind Total Cover for example) then the attacker gets to chose a new target.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-24, 11:37 AM
You see him aiming at you, you jaunt outside of LOS...thats kosher. No worries. And yeah, that doesnt actually eat his attack.

It's the whole "oh look that attack would hit me, I guess NOW I want to use a jaunt" thats a fail. You can jaunt at any point, but you can't actually turn back the clock.

Also, the idea that jaunting from one legal target area to another legal target area would help vs ranged. Nope, by RAW, they are targetting you, not the square you are in.

This isn't really a significant disadvantage to Abrupt jaunt, especially if you use cover wisely, but using "duck out of the way" logic leads to all sorts of wierd areas.

Boci
2010-08-24, 11:40 AM
Yeah, the way I've generally run it when I've been DMing the Neverending Dungeon (and other games) is that the main time you use Abrupt Jaunt is in response to a declaration of attack. The archer aims his bow, the giant swings his club, the spellcaster starts casting a spell (and you Spellcraft it), and in response to that you declare your Abrupt Jaunt. If you've played smart and positioned yourself right, you can Jaunt out or range or out of LoE of the attack. If not, well, better hope the attack roll's low.

What about making AJ a swift action instead, or would that be underpowered?

Saph
2010-08-24, 11:48 AM
What about making AJ a swift action instead, or would that be underpowered?

It would make it equivalent to free Anklets of Translocation that don't take a body slot, can go through solid objects, and can be used 4-5 times a day (assuming low level) instead of only twice.

It's a significant nerf, but at low levels it would still be very good. Once you got to higher levels (once familiars become really useful, and everyone has teleportation) it would become relatively underpowered, though still not bad.

Mongoose87
2010-08-24, 12:11 PM
I think what this thread has determined is that there are two major reasons to nerf Abrupt Jaunt:

1. It is OP.

2. It is a rules mess.

Fax Celestis
2010-08-24, 12:13 PM
I see all these arguments for ranged attackers. What happens if fighter charges me, and I jaunt in such a way that I am no longer a legal target for his charge?

To be frank, immediate actions happen immediately: that's why they're called immediate actions. Unless you want to tell me a wizard who casts feather fall in response to being bull-rushed off a cliff can't cast it before hitting the ground because the triggering effect already was rolled and took place? Or that a wizard can't cast nerveskitter before rolling initiative because combat already initiated, too bad?

hamishspence
2010-08-24, 12:20 PM
4E has a slightly different approach to this sort of thing than 3.5- it splits immediate actions into two categories- immediate reactions, and immediate interrupts.

An immediate interrupt is resolved just before the action that triggers it.

Is Abrupt Jaunt more like an immediate reaction, or an immediate interrupt?

Saph
2010-08-24, 12:21 PM
I think what this thread has determiend is that there are two major reasons to nerf Abrupt Jaunt:

1. It is OP.

2. It is a rules mess.

That pretty much sums up my opinions on it too. :smalltongue:

Eldariel
2010-08-24, 12:27 PM
I think what this thread has determined is that there are two major reasons to nerf Abrupt Jaunt:

1. It is OP.

2. It is a rules mess.

The latter applies to immediate actions in general; they simply were never defined well enough to know what they can or can't do making just about every interpretation in this thread correct by the rules. Which...is kinda stupid since the interpretations are polar opposites.

jiriku
2010-08-24, 12:29 PM
But I think that if I was playing in your game, I'd get a bit annoyed if the wizard player got to use logic to dodge attacks and nobody else did.

If you were playing in my game, you'd find that everybody else has access to homebrew feats and ACFs that do cool things like dodge attacks as immediate actions. My players usually refer to me as "Santa Claus" during character creation. Which is counterbalanced by the fact that they call me "sadistic bastard" during gameplay. :smallcool:




Really, I don't see the fuss. Dodging a ranged attack is frequently a pretty suboptimal use of AJ. It's far better used to remove yourself from bad situations, like being grappled, entangled, swallowed whole, walled in, or somesuch, than to dodge a mere attack. Avoiding a few hps of damage is nice, but as Saph has already mentioned -- you've already got miss chance and AC to help you out there. A wizzie in a tight spot hasn't the Strength check, grapple mod, or melee damage capability to get himself out of most of the abovementioned situations. And no one would argue that AJ isn't valid for escaping those situations.

As JaronK often points out, your only real concerns as a DM are to ensure that all the players are at approximately the same power level, and that the total power level of the campaign doesn't grow beyond your ability to manage it. Personally, I've got a tight handle on game balance and two decades of experience running RPGs, so those things are easy. For others, the banhammer and the nerfbat are always there if you need them.

lesser_minion
2010-08-24, 12:59 PM
Thing is, there are lots of defensive immediate action abilities that become useless if they can't prevent an attack that triggers them. So shouldn't the timing of Abrupt Jaunt immediate actions work the same way as all those others? It is unfortunate that it pretty much works automatically, rather than requiring you to roll to negate an attack ... but I don't think there's much room for the argument that the following is how the ability works, if that's what anyone is arguing:

From a RAW standpoint, I think Saph is right. The attack has either happened or it hasn't. As far as the rules are concerned, there's no time in between "start resolution" and "end resolution", so there's no point where you could have AJ'd out of the attack unless you use AJ to get out of the affected area. And even if you do that, the enemy can change his target in the very least.

Personally, I would suggest ruling it -- and similar cases -- by analogy to a readied action. If any interrupt is resolved in its entirety immediately before the action to be interrupted (in the same way as a readied action), then you end up with the same conclusion -- you can only thwart the attack by abrupt jaunt if you end up somewhere you cannot be legally targeted, and if you do thwart the attack, it doesn't miss -- the attacker can simply attack someone else. Beyond that, exceptions are noted (for example, Wings of Cover doesn't commit the attacker to the action she declared, whereas a readied Wall of Force does).


I see all these arguments for ranged attackers. What happens if fighter charges me, and I jaunt in such a way that I am no longer a legal target for his charge?

Unstated, but ruling it by analogy to using a readied action to achieve the same thing, fighter would charge and start hacking furiously at thin air. Abrupt Jaunt is still hideous against melee attacks.


To be frank, immediate actions happen immediately: that's why they're called immediate actions. Unless you want to tell me a wizard who casts feather fall in response to being bull-rushed off a cliff can't cast it before hitting the ground because the triggering effect already was rolled and took place? Or that a wizard can't cast nerveskitter before rolling initiative because combat already initiated, too bad?

For being bull-rushed, you find yourself in midair after the bull rush resolves, so you would have an opportunity to cast the spell then.

Nerveskitter doesn't have a problem as long as you've ruled that it's an exception to the rule that you can't take an immediate action until you've taken at least one normal turn in the initiative order. Otherwise, it is virtually impossible to cast.

Boci
2010-08-24, 01:03 PM
Nerveskitter doesn't have a problem as long as you've ruled that it's an exception to the rule that you can't take an immediate action until you've taken at least one normal turn in the initiative order. Otherwise, it is virtually impossible to cast.

The spell specifically states it can be cast before you have acted.

jiriku
2010-08-24, 01:10 PM
For being bull-rushed, you find yourself in midair after the bull rush resolves, so you would have an opportunity to cast the spell then.

Nerveskitter doesn't have a problem as long as you've ruled that it's an exception to the rule that you can't take an immediate action until you've taken at least one normal turn in the initiative order. Otherwise, it is virtually impossible to cast.

The difficulty I see with your RAI of the RAW is that you're forced to break your own interpretation in order to accomodate other effects. Where in the rules does it say that falling is a separate action from entering a space that doesn't support you? The rules don't address such a thing, so by that same narrow intepretation, there's zero time elapsed and thus no time for an immediate action.

Likewise, your usage of nerveskitter requires the DM to make a ruling in order for the spell to even work at all within your RAW-verse.

Isn't it so much easier and simpler to just skip all that contorted logic and just say "AJ lets you dodge any attack, and I think that's too powerful so I'm going to unapologetically nerf it in the following way." ?

lesser_minion
2010-08-24, 01:33 PM
The difficulty I see with your RAI of the RAW is that you're forced to break your own interpretation in order to accomodate other effects.

I'm not seeing this. Why would it be the same action?

You can ready an action with the trigger "If I start falling", and you can ready an action with the trigger "If he bullrushes me". Anywhere a readied action could be resolved is a valid place for an immediate to resolve.


Likewise, your usage of nerveskitter requires the DM to make a ruling in order for the spell to even work at all within your RAW-verse.

It merely requires the DM to understand the fact that a spell that requires you to do something that is normally against the rules must also allow you to do it, even though that's not stated separately. I'm just noting that there is a particularly braindead reading of the rules, but that I see no other reason why "it has happened or it hasn't" actually would disallow nerveskitter.


Isn't it so much easier and simpler to just skip all that contorted logic and just say "AJ lets you dodge any attack, and I think that's too powerful so I'm going to unapologetically nerf it in the following way." ?

I'm trying to cover more cases than that.

As far as I'm concerned, it's already been proven that RAW doesn't let you dodge the arrow after it's fired but before it's hit you (and, for that matter, that even being able to dodge arbitrary attacks was never intended).

I agree with Boci that it needs nerfing and that turning it into a swift action might be a reasonable way to do that, but that's besides the point.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-24, 01:35 PM
It merely requires the DM to understand the fact that a spell that requires you to do something that is normally against the rules must also allow you to do it, even though that's not stated separately. I'm just noting that there is a particularly braindead reading of the rules, but that I see no other reason why "it has happened or it hasn't" actually would disallow nerveskitter.


Er, nerveskitter has such an explicit exception. So....yeah.

lesser_minion
2010-08-24, 01:36 PM
Er, nerveskitter has such an explicit exception. So....yeah.

I didn't see one when I read the spell, but... whatever. It doesn't particularly matter.

jiriku
2010-08-24, 01:53 PM
I'm not seeing this. Why would it be the same action?

You can ready an action with the trigger "If I start falling", and you can ready an action with the trigger "If he bullrushes me". Anywhere a readied action could be resolved is a valid place for an immediate to resolve.

OK. You've convinced me on that point.

So, I ready an action with the trigger "If an arrow or ray is in flight and headed towards me." Discuss.

lesser_minion
2010-08-24, 02:04 PM
So, I ready an action with the trigger "If an arrow or ray is in flight and headed towards me." Discuss.

You stand there with your mouth open and watch the arrow sink into your flesh, dealing X amount of damage.

The response resolves before the triggering action. If the triggering action is already under way, then you've missed your RAW chance to act, and anything that does happen is undefined behaviour, and handled however your DM chooses.

jiriku
2010-08-24, 02:13 PM
I know your position. I'm asking you to cite the portion of the rules that leads you to believe that "something pushes me" and "gravity begins to pull me through the air" allow for immediate actions, but "an object begins to fly through the air towards me" does not. I see all of those things as the same. You see them as different. I want to know where you're coming from.




Yup. And by the same logic, it should be trivially easy to dodge a long-range arrow just by sidestepping (which takes considerably less than 1 second).

Nitpick: While you're correct, this is modeled in the game by the -10 penalty that an archer takes for firing at extreme range. The archer takes a heavy penalty precisely because of the distance and flight time.

lesser_minion
2010-08-24, 02:21 PM
I know your position. I'm asking you to cite the portion of the rules that leads you to believe that "something pushes me" and "gravity begins to pull me through the air" allow for immediate actions, but "an object begins to fly through the air towards me" does not. I see all of those things as the same. You see them as different. I want to know where you're coming from.

That trigger is a special case of "if he shoots at me..." that prevents you from taking the readied action when the rules place it (before the shot is fired). Ergo, you don't have to do anything (the DMG actually recommends an opposed ability check for one form of this, but it's explicitly noted as a bizarre case and not something you could rule the same way every time a variant of it comes up).

jiriku
2010-08-24, 02:25 PM
The response resolves before the triggering action. If the triggering action is already under way, then you've missed your RAW chance to act, and anything that does happen is undefined behaviour, and handled however your DM chooses.


That trigger is a special case of "if he shoots at me..." that prevents you from taking the readied action when the rules place it (before the shot is fired). Ergo, you do nothing.

So if I understand you correctly, you mean that readied actions must be taken in response to other actions, therefore immediate actions must also, and that firing an arrow cannot be separated into sub-actions, therefore it's not possible to insert an immediate action in the middle of firing an arrow?

OK, I can buy into most of that.

But where do you find RAW support for the idea that immediate actions can only be taken in response to other actions? I keep coming back to that description of immediate actions that says "at any time".

Fiery Diamond
2010-08-24, 02:45 PM
Yup. And by the same logic, it should be trivially easy to dodge a long-range arrow just by sidestepping (which takes considerably less than 1 second).

You're right that it doesn't make much sense to tell the wizard player "no, you don't have enough time". But I think that if I was playing in your game, I'd get a bit annoyed if the wizard player got to use logic to dodge attacks and nobody else did. If the wizard can Abrupt Jaunt in 5 seconds, I think it's pretty reasonable to say that any other character can use the same length of time to duck.



Which was pretty much the image I was using in my first post - the arrow doing a right angle to hit its target. Of course it's absurd, but that's what you get when you use strict RAW.

Emphasis mine. Regarding that...that's what AC is; your character dodging. The penalty the archer takes for range to his attack simulates it being easier to dodge. AJ could, by one interpretation, in this case actually replace your AC. As in, the target number that the attack needs to hit is "undefined" rather than your actual AC. How the DM decides to rule what that means is another issue entirely.

lesser_minion
2010-08-24, 02:45 PM
But where do you find RAW support for the idea that immediate actions can only be taken in response to other actions? I keep coming back to that description of immediate actions that says "at any time".

I didn't. I started by suggesting that one way to rule this was by analogy to readied actions and attacks of opportunity, and by going back to Kyeudo's points (there is no such thing as an attack in progress by RAW).

Even "No actions" that affect an in-progress action make it very clear that they do so.

jiriku
2010-08-24, 03:11 PM
OK, well, I guess that kind of closes the circle and takes us back to where we started. RAW for immediate actions states that they can be taken at any time. Regardless of how it breaks down into actions, when an archer fires an arrow, there is a moment in time when the arrow is nocked on the bow string, a moment where the arrow has just left the bowstring, a moment when the arrow is in flight to its target, a moment when impact is imminent, and a moment when it is inserted into its target pointy-end-first. We may not have mechanics to describe these units of time or to tell us how many milliseconds each one lasts (largely because the designers learned from the weapon speed debacle of 1e and 2e and decided such mechanics would be tedious and unnecesary, IMO), but undeniably these moments in time exist. I still see no RAW justification for saying that it is valid to take an immediate action during some of these moments but not during others. The opportunity to take an immediate action exists irrespective of what actions others may or may not be taking nearby.

Putting my gamer theorist hat on, perhaps what we're running into is a headbutt between my simulationist perspective, which sees the rules as an attempt to mimic reality in a tidy and simple-to-use way, and the more gamist perspect that you and Saph and others have, which holds that the rules are a system unto themselves.

Whammydill
2010-08-24, 04:06 PM
I would make anyone trying to AJ from a ranged attack ready an action to do so. Thats right you heard me, ready an immediate action. You already have mechanics in place for not being there between the attack and when it connects, its called dodge bonus and dexterity bonus to AC.

Otherwise you are going to have people who insist they can AJ between the time the arrow point touches them and it actually penetrates the skins first layer...as if they had that kind of reaction time...you still have to choose to do it, it isn't automatic. I'm all for optimizing but the lengths people take their immediate action cheese is just ludicrous. I fully stop reading PbP here when I see AJ being used because I know the next 15 pages are going to be boring drivel until the wizard runs out of them.

AJ against melee fine, melee is easy(er) to telegraph and have enough reaction time to choose to AJ. Flat footed or otherwise incapable of taking an action for some reason...no AJ.

OH BUT WAIT!!! It says anytime, so that means I can go BACK IN TIME or FORWARD IN TIME to jaunt right!? The future and the past are places in time and I can abrupt jaunt AT ANY TIME! amirite?

Fax Celestis
2010-08-24, 04:15 PM
AJ against melee fine, melee is easy(er) to telegraph and have enough reaction time to choose to AJ. Flat footed or otherwise incapable of taking an action for some reason...no AJ.

These are, in fact, the rules for when you can and cannot take an immediate action.


Unstated, but ruling it by analogy to using a readied action to achieve the same thing, fighter would charge and start hacking furiously at thin air. Abrupt Jaunt is still hideous against melee attacks.

I posit the question: are you flat-footed against ranged attacks? No. Then why are you allowing someone to dodge a melee attack with one, but not a ranged one? If Romeorc the Fighter manages to full-attack me, and I jaunt immediately as he declares it, how is that any different than Julielf the Archer full-attacking me and me jaunting right as she declares it?

Saph
2010-08-24, 04:17 PM
Putting my gamer theorist hat on, perhaps what we're running into is a headbutt between my simulationist perspective, which sees the rules as an attempt to mimic reality in a tidy and simple-to-use way, and the more gamist perspect that you and Saph and others have, which holds that the rules are a system unto themselves.

That's me, a die-hard RAW gamist. Seriously, though, when I posted on this back at the top of the second page, I approached the question from a logical point of view, and a balance point of view and a RAW point of view, specifically because I didn't see it as only one or the other.

From a RAW point of view, it's pretty open-and-shut; yes, you can AJ in the middle of an attack, but doing so doesn't actually do anything.

From a balance point of view, as I understand it, you're arguing that AJ is balanced in your games because you make homebrew immediate-action counters available to all the other classes too - which is fine, but doesn't answer the question of whether AJ is balanced against non-houseruled classes.

That just leaves what you call the 'simulationist' perspective, from which you could argue that AJ should let you dodge an attack. Of course, you could also argue that if you have the time to spot an attack incoming and do a quick magical effect to block it, you would also have the time to sidestep, and thus dodging an attack in this way is already modeled by your touch armour class. Which one of these positions you find more plausible is pretty much completely down to subjective preference.


I posit the question: are you flat-footed against ranged attacks? No. Then why are you allowing someone to dodge a melee attack with one, but not a ranged one? If Romeorc the Fighter manages to full-attack me, and I jaunt immediately as he declares it, how is that any different than Julielf the Archer full-attacking me and me jaunting right as she declares it?

It's simple.

Romeorc the Fighter: I attack the wizard!
Wizard: I Abrupt Jaunt 10 feet away from you.
Romeorc the Fighter: I've only got a reach of 5 feet. I'm sad.

Julielf the Archer: I attack the wizard!
Wizard: I Abrupt Jaunt 10 feet away from you.
Julielf the Archer: I've got a range of 550 feet. I don't care.

AJ is awesome against melee attacks because it can easily put you out of attack range (well, unless you're fighting giants with spiked chains). It's less good against ranged attacks because it's much harder to get out of range of a scorching ray or composite longbow.

Fax Celestis
2010-08-24, 04:27 PM
Romeorc the Fighter: I attack the wizard!
Wizard: I Abrupt Jaunt 10 feet away from you.
Romeorc the Fighter: I've only got a reach of 5 feet. I'm sad.

Julielf the Archer: I attack the wizard!
Wizard: I Abrupt Jaunt 10 feet away from you.
Julielf the Archer: I've got a range of 550 feet. I don't care.

AJ is awesome against melee attacks because it can easily put you out of attack range (well, unless you're fighting giants with spiked chains). It's less good against ranged attacks because it's much harder to get out of range of a scorching ray or composite longbow.

Except you've already fired at my old location.

Slow it down a little and look at it this way: if you cast delayed blast fireball, and I move out of the area before it goes off, am I still affected even though I'm inside the spell's range? No, because I'm not in its area of effect anymore.

Similarly, then, if you shoot arrows at me and I move out of the area I was standing in, Am I still affected even though I'm inside your bow's range? No, because I'm not in the area you were aiming at anymore.

Saph
2010-08-24, 04:32 PM
Similarly, then, if you shoot arrows at me and I move out of the area I was standing in, Am I still affected even though I'm inside your bow's range? No, because I'm not in the area you were aiming at anymore.

That's a logical way to look at it, but it's not RAW. By RAW, whether you hit or miss is determined by your attack roll. If the attacker's attack roll beats the defender's AC and the defender isn't protected by some effect which can specifically force an attack to miss (like displacement) then the attack hits, full stop.

What you're describing is a houserule. It's not unreasonable, but if you're going to argue that Wizards should be able to force an auto-miss by using AJ, then I'm going to argue that my melee character should be able to do the same by dropping prone (which is a free action) or just by sidestepping (since if the Wizard's got time to spot the flying arrow and use his AJ, I should be able to use the same time to duck).

Snake-Aes
2010-08-24, 04:37 PM
if you want to put it in a more reasonable logic...attack rolls are instantaneous. You can move before it happens, after it happens, but not WHILE it happens.

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-24, 04:44 PM
Theoretical situation; I am being shot at by an archer. I know for a fact he can fire One Arrow per turn, and that he will shoot me.


So I ready an action to take a five foot step / jump to the side the moment the arrow leaves his bow / enters the square directly infront of him.

My action triggers as soon as the arrow enters the square infront of him, and I move.

But what happens next? Does his roll get compared to my AC? My AC with a situational Modifier? Or do I negate his attack at the cost of readying an action?

If nothing else, I struggle to see the DM's use of situational modifiers as 'Houserules'.

[edit] I could see the argument for Ray type spells and so on being instant, at least. Arrows and similar missiles however, actually have to travel.

But as most FPS players can tell you, you can dodge instant ray style attacks just fine, you just have to be ready, or lucky. I'd say that fits perfectly well with a mixture of AC and possible use of carefully readied actions. Interested to see what the rest of you think, however.

jiriku
2010-08-24, 04:45 PM
That's me, a die-hard RAW gamist. Seriously, though, when I posted on this back at the top of the second page, I approached the question from a logical point of view, and a balance point of view and a RAW point of view, specifically because I didn't see it as only one or the other.

From a RAW point of view, it's pretty open-and-shut; yes, you can AJ in the middle of an attack, but doing so doesn't actually do anything

If I was going to make up a funny name for you, I think I'd call you a die-hard-jaunt-nerfer. It rolls off the tongue so well. :smallbiggrin:

Your definition of middle differs from mine. I've asked this repeatedly and I sort of get the feeling that my debate partners are ducking me: why can you not take actions while arrows are in flight? Immediate actions can be taken at any time -- nothing in the rules specify that they may be taken only at the beginning or end of other people's actions. The game rules already acknowledge that some actions are assumed to be ongoing in the midst of other actions (e.x. firing from a moving mount). What if the hypothetical arrow was a falling rock or a quick-burning bomb fuse? Would you likewise be unable to jaunt while the rock was falling or the fuse was burning? There's no RAW justification for saying "you can't jaunt yet, he's in the middle of shooting you."


From a balance point of view, as I understand it, you're arguing that AJ is balanced in your games because you make homebrew immediate-action counters available to all the other classes too - which is fine, but doesn't answer the question of whether AJ is balanced against non-houseruled classes.

It's understandable that you might have misunderstood this, since the thread is very long. My comment about the homebrew was a joke in response to your implied criticism of the fun level in my campaigns. The intent of the joke was to tactfully inform you that I am aware of and react to balance issues in the game. Here is my original balance argument, as posted earlier (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9208444&postcount=48):


Balance: Whether something is "too good" depends on context. In some high-op games, this feature is nothing special. In others, a wizard incompetently played by a newbie player may struggle to keep up with his more experienced and skilled buddies, and the DM might actually suggest AJ as an easy way for the newb to improve his character's survivability.

To answer the question as to whether AJ is balanced against other classes -- it's a feature, not a class. But irregardless, I'll again quote my own post so you can see my position.


For my two cents, logical reasoning and RAW both agree that Abrupt Jaunt is valid against ranged attacks. Balance tells me I should consider carefully whether the RAW Abrupt Jaunt is appropriate for my campaign, and if the answer is no, I should nerf or ban it as appropriate.


That just leaves what you call the 'simulationist' perspective, from which you could argue that AJ should let you dodge an attack. Of course, you could also argue that if you have the time to spot an attack incoming and do a quick magical effect to block it, you would also have the time to sidestep, and thus dodging an attack in this way is already modeled by your touch armour class. Which one of these positions you find more plausible is pretty much completely down to subjective preference.

I actually support your position fully here. You should also have time to duck slow-moving ranged attacks. This is modeled in-game by the range increment penalty, which increases with distance. Although I fail to see how touch AC has squat to do with arrows, or is in any way preferable to regular AC. Perhaps you meant to type 'regular AC'?

Whammydill
2010-08-24, 04:46 PM
Except you've already fired at my old location.

Slow it down a little and look at it this way: if you cast delayed blast fireball, and I move out of the area before it goes off, am I still affected even though I'm inside the spell's range? No, because I'm not in its area of effect anymore.

Similarly, then, if you shoot arrows at me and I move out of the area I was standing in, Am I still affected even though I'm inside your bow's range? No, because I'm not in the area you were aiming at anymore.


Who says spells flight time isn't instant, who says it is? How fast does that fireball fly? Who isn't going to interpret in their own favor? I'm pretty sure we all understand the concept of flight time in projectiles and not getting hit by them. Its existing physics yeah we get it.

If you take the anytime rule to its (il)logical extreme; I can't wait till we have people using the following scenario:

Wee Zard the wizard: I cast fireball at Kahn Juhror the Conjurer
Kahn: I abrupt jaunt 10 feet away and unharmed!
Wee: But Fireball has a 20ft blast you can't get out of its blast with 10 feet of movement
Kahn: Ahh but you see the duration on Fireball is instantaneous, I was jaunting which is also instant using my nigh godly reaction time and reflexes during that instantaneous explosion thus I wasn't actually there when it was exploding!
Wee: I cast Wings of Cover and hide my shame...

Tiki Snakes
2010-08-24, 04:50 PM
Who says spells flight time isn't instant, who says it is? How fast does that fireball fly? Who isn't going to interpret in their own favor? I'm pretty sure we all understand the concept of flight time in projectiles and not getting hit by them. Its existing physics yeah we get it.

If you take the anytime rule to its (il)logical extreme; I can't wait till we have people using the following scenario:

Wee Zard the wizard: I cast fireball at Kahn Juhror the Conjurer
Kahn: I abrupt jaunt 10 feet away and unharmed!
Wee: But Fireball has a 20ft blast you can't get out of its blast with 10 feet of movement
Kahn: Ahh but you see the duration on Fireball is instantaneous, I was jaunting which is also instant using my nigh godly reaction time and reflexes during that instantaneous explosion thus I wasn't actually there when it was exploding!
Wee: I cast Wings of Cover and hide my shame...

To be fair, even with fecetious logic, the argument fails. Because if both things are instant, and his triggers first enough that he is not there when the fireball explodes, then he also arrives back in it's radius before the fireball explodes.

I think MtG's 'Stack' concept can often be helpful in these situations. it's a shame they didn't build the rules with such a clear way of adjudicating such events really.

Whammydill
2010-08-24, 04:51 PM
I actually support your position fully here. You should also have time to duck slow-moving ranged attacks. This is modeled in-game by the range increment penalty, which increases with distance. Although I fail to see how touch AC has squat to do with arrows, or is in any way preferable to regular AC. Perhaps you meant to type 'regular AC'?

I don't see why range penalty models ducking slow moving ranged attacks, it models that it's harder to hit something at longer range than short range, hence its an attack penalty, not an AC bonus for the defender.

Whammydill
2010-08-24, 04:53 PM
To be fair, even with fecetious logic, the argument fails. Because if both things are instant, and his triggers first enough that he is not there when the fireball explodes, then he also arrives back in it's radius before the fireball explodes.

I think MtG's 'Stack' concept can often be helpful in these situations. it's a shame they didn't build the rules with such a clear way of adjudicating such events really.

No because ANYTIME means I can Jaunt at that INSTANT the fireball was exploding, not before, not after. ANY. TIME.

Saph
2010-08-24, 04:56 PM
Your definition of middle differs from mine. I've asked this repeatedly and I sort of get the feeling that my debate partners are ducking me: why can you not take actions while arrows are in flight?

. . . I've answered that at least twice in this thread. By RAW, you can take actions while arrows are in flight. And by RAW, it does absolutely nothing unless that action specifies otherwise. I honestly don't know how you've gained the impression that I'm 'ducking' you.


Whether something is "too good" depends on context. In some high-op games, this feature is nothing special.

Sorry, but I completely disagree. I've played in extremely high-op games, and Abrupt Jaunt is fantastically good even against high-power, high-lethality opponents. I've had it singlehandedly save my character's life, often repeatedly, and quite often my Abrupt Jaunt proved more powerful than all my defensive buffs put together. And yet it's a level 1 ability. That does not meet my definition of 'nothing special'.

jiriku
2010-08-24, 05:01 PM
I don't see why range penalty models ducking slow moving ranged attacks, it models that it's harder to hit something at longer range than short range, hence its an attack penalty, not an AC bonus for the defender.

Well, step inside the designer's heads and flip it round. Why don't ray spells have a range increment? Some of them have considerable range. A reasonable answer is that unlike normal ranged attacks, which are slow-moving projectiles, a ray spell is a LAZOR! and travels very quickly to its target.

Whether something is a penalty to the attacker's attack roll or a bonus to the defender's AC is largely a matter of semantics. Dropping prone also imposes attack roll penalties even those being prone is something the defender does.

Either way, talking about why something is a penalty or a bonus is well outside of RAW...Saph and I are both talking about what's reasonable and logical here, because neither of us knows with complete certainty what the designers intended, or if they even cared.

Fax Celestis
2010-08-24, 05:03 PM
No because ANYTIME means I can Jaunt at that INSTANT the fireball was exploding, not before, not after. ANY. TIME.

That word does not mean what you think it means.


What you're describing is a houserule. It's not unreasonable, but if you're going to argue that Wizards should be able to force an auto-miss by using AJ, then I'm going to argue that my melee character should be able to do the same by dropping prone (which is a free action) or just by sidestepping (since if the Wizard's got time to spot the flying arrow and use his AJ, I should be able to use the same time to duck).

And I would tell you you can't unless you have an ability that lets you do those things as an immediate action. As far as I know, they don't exist. If you were to ready an action to move if an archer fires at you, then you would be able to move out of the way unharmed: he fired, you moved out of the way.

Yukitsu
2010-08-24, 05:04 PM
By that logic, if they didn't explicitly say so mechanically, displacement would do nothing, by virtue of your position in relation to where they are actually aiming being irrelevant.

Me personally, I'd just go with what makes sense, it being non-heat seeking arrows. It's not like one arrow out of the minimum 2 that an archer build is going to get out is going to make so much of a difference that it's worth the fuss.

Edit: That aside, a contingent celerity can be used to side-step as an immediate, but that's usually a waste. More realistically, I can nerf an arbitrary amount of melee from one guy by readying to withdraw.

jiriku
2010-08-24, 05:13 PM
. . . I've answered that at least twice in this thread. By RAW, you can take actions while arrows are in flight. And by RAW, it does absolutely nothing unless that action specifies otherwise. I honestly don't know how you've gained the impression that I'm 'ducking' you.

Eh, so we're back to the Patriot Arrow, then? OK, sorry, I thought you were kidding when you said that. Frankly, I couldn't describe such a thing in my game without triggering a round of laughter.



Sorry, but I completely disagree. I've played in extremely high-op games, and Abrupt Jaunt is fantastically good even against high-power, high-lethality opponents. I've had it singlehandedly save my character's life, often repeatedly, and quite often my Abrupt Jaunt proved more powerful than all my defensive buffs put together. And yet it's a level 1 ability. That does not meet my definition of 'nothing special'.

Different people have different experiences with D&D. Me, I'm like you. Give me Abrupt Jaunt and a handful of wizardly defenses and my character is absolutely invunerable. But some of my fellow players are such brilliant optimizers that they can make equally formidable characters out of even mid-tier classes. In such a party, the god wizard is only average and AJ is merely one spiffy ability among many possessed by the PCs.

Contrariwise, I've repeatedly killed PCs in my campaign who had complex crafted contingencies and ready access to effects like swift etherealness and AJ and the like. These tier 1 characters were overshadowed and ultimately outlived by PCs of only middling theoretical power because of differences in player skill. Frankly, the best build in the world can still look and feel suboptimal if the player is a doofus.

tl;dr YMMV when it comes to the relative power of any option. As I've said before, context is everything.

Saph
2010-08-24, 05:14 PM
And I would tell you you can't unless you have an ability that lets you do those things as an immediate action. As far as I know, they don't exist. If you were to ready an action to move if an archer fires at you, then you would be able to move out of the way unharmed: he fired, you moved out of the way.

Okay, so you're sticking with RAW and saying that you can't dodge an attack unless you have some way of taking an action that lets you do so (even if it's the kind of attack that an observant person could easily dodge in real life). Fair enough, it doesn't make that much sense, but neither does a lot of D&D. So why don't you resolve the Abrupt Jaunt by RAW as well?


Eh, so we're back to the Patriot Arrow, then? OK, sorry, I thought you were kidding when you said that. Frankly, I couldn't describe such a thing in my game without triggering a round of laughter.

But you don't see anything wrong with the wizard having the equivalent of Wired Reflexes from Shadowrun and spotting and dodging an attack in split-seconds, while everyone else in the party stands stock still and watches shots coming in at them.

This is why I don't agree with your and Fax's position. You're basically saying that you're going to use logic in one place while sticking with RAW in another, and I can't see any very good argument for why.

Whammydill
2010-08-24, 05:15 PM
Well, step inside the designer's heads and flip it round. Why don't ray spells have a range increment? Some of them have considerable range. A reasonable answer is that unlike normal ranged attacks, which are slow-moving projectiles, a ray spell is a LAZOR! and travels very quickly to its target.

Whether something is a penalty to the attacker's attack roll or a bonus to the defender's AC is largely a matter of semantics. Dropping prone also imposes attack roll penalties even those being prone is something the defender does.

Either way, talking about why something is a penalty or a bonus is well outside of RAW...Saph and I are both talking about what's reasonable and logical here, because neither of us knows with complete certainty what the designers intended, or if they even cared.

Funny what I get from all this is that blatant adherance to "any time" thwarts all is viciously defended due to fear of AJ being taken down from omnipotently broken to just broken.

D&D combat is a series of actions ranging from Full-round down to the (not well thought out) Immediate actions. Any action taken has to get in line with the others, immediate actions can just cut the line. Bisecting these actions into indeterminate portions of time to which you can abuse "Anytime" clause just seems like cheesy munchkin-ism and doesn't hold an ounce of logic to me. Nor I imagine did it to the designers, heck these are guys who playtested wizards as blasters and didn't realize what monster they were making. I love wizards but that is one class that doesn't need any extra help in the cheese department. Especially when just trying to handwave things away and sit back and preen and point to the "anytime" sign. It's a weak argument to me.

DanReiv
2010-08-24, 05:17 PM
Except you've already fired at my old location.

Did not.

Wee-zard jaunts just after Julielf declared his intention to turn him into a porcupine, but before she actually rolled.

Agreeing with Saph here, and with RAW, incidently.

The thing is yes you can use an immediate action whenever you please.

BUT, if you do an AJ after being hit (attacks rolls resolved), you're still hit when you reappear.

Common sense people.

Yukitsu
2010-08-24, 05:19 PM
I think people are arguing about when the attack is in the air, but has not yet been resolved.

As well, how do you then resolve immediate action boosts to AC or saves? Do they not apply to attacks, and thus not have any effect?

Fax Celestis
2010-08-24, 05:19 PM
Okay, so you're sticking with RAW and saying that you can't dodge an attack unless you have some way of taking an action that lets you do so (even if it's the kind of attack that an observant person could easily dodge in real life). Fair enough, it doesn't make that much sense, but neither does a lot of D&D. So why don't you resolve the Abrupt Jaunt by RAW as well?

I am.


Immediate Action

An immediate action is very similar to a swift action, but can be performed at any time — even if it's not your turn.


Immediate Actions

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. Casting feather fall is an immediate action, since the spell can be cast at any time.

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 flat-footed.

Basically, you're telling me that if someone pushes you off a cliff, you can't cast feather fall because you're in the process of falling. Either you have to cast feather fall before you get pushed, or can only cast it after you've landed. Both of these defeat the entire purpose of feather fall.

Frosty
2010-08-24, 05:19 PM
Theoretical situation; I am being shot at by an archer. I know for a fact he can fire One Arrow per turn, and that he will shoot me.


So I ready an action to take a five foot step / jump to the side the moment the arrow leaves his bow / enters the square directly infront of him.

My action triggers as soon as the arrow enters the square infront of him, and I move.

But what happens next? Does his roll get compared to my AC? My AC with a situational Modifier? Or do I negate his attack at the cost of readying an action?
To be honest, things like getting ready to get out of the way of falling prone is decently modeled by the "Full-Defense" option. You knwo the arrow is coming, so using the full-defense, you get +4 AC. The archer still has a chance to overcome your reflexes, but it's harder now.

As for the specific situation, I see two ways I might try to handle this as a DM.

1) Circumstancial AC bonus. Probably again +4. Or perhaps a Circumstancial Miss Chance. Say...20%. If you ready your movement to a space with cover, you get additional bonuses as normal due to cover. If you get behind a wall or something you're of course completely protected unless the projectile is strong enough to puncture the wall and keep going.

2) The archer will miss if you ready an action to move. However, the archer also has the option now to use Bluff skill to 'fake' firing an arrow, causing you to trigger your movement if you fail your Sense Motive check (The DM describes the archer as looking like he's firing the bow. The PC executes readied action, but the archer did not actually fire). This would take a Move action to use Bluff in this manner. And now the archer has a Standard action left to fire upon you with his Manyshot.

Did not.

Wee-zard jaunts just after Julielf declared his intention to turn him into a porcupine, but before she actually rolled.

Agreeing with Saph here, and with RAW, incidently.

The thing is yes you can use an immediate action whenever you please.

BUT, if you do an AJ after being hit (attacks rolls resolved), you're still hit when you reappear.

Common sense people.Agreed. I believe that by RAW, things like Abrupt Jaunt MUST be used before the attack roll is rolled.

Of course, if it's part of the full attack, the first arrow misses, but you're still range of the 4 other arrows the arcehr can shoot at you this round.

Yukitsu
2010-08-24, 05:22 PM
To be honest, things like getting ready to get out of the way of falling prone is decently modeled by the "Full-Defense" option. You knwo the arrow is coming, so using the full-defense, you get +4 AC. The archer still has a chance to overcome your reflexes, but it's harder now.

As for the specific situation, I see two ways I might try to handle this as a DM.

1) Circumstancial AC bonus. Probably again +4. Or perhaps a Circumstancial Miss Chance. Say...20%. If you ready your movement to a space with cover, you get additional bonuses as normal due to cover. If you get behind a wall or something you're of course completely protected unless the projectile is strong enough to puncture the wall and keep going.

2) The archer will miss if you ready an action to move. However, the archer also has the option now to use Bluff skill to 'fake' firing an arrow, causing you to trigger your movement if you fail your Sense Motive check (The DM describes the archer as looking like he's firing the bow. The PC executes readied action, but the archer did not actually fire). This would take a Move action to use Bluff in this manner. And now the archer has a Standard action left to fire upon you with his Manyshot.

I don't really agree with this. Full defence is a full round action used to assist against a multitude of attacks. Readying an action means you're focused on that single one attack. Even if not negated, it warrants more than a +4. And in the latter case, how do you "fake" fire a longbow? :smallconfused:


Agreed. I believe that by RAW, things like Abrupt Jaunt MUST be used before the attack roll is rolled.

Of course, if it's part of the full attack, the first arrow misses, but you're still range of the 4 other arrows the arcehr can shoot at you this round.

IRL, before the modifier+roll were totalled may be more appropriate. Some people declare attacks and roll at the same time as a habit, and it's really not worth getting worked up over.

Whammydill
2010-08-24, 05:24 PM
I am.





Basically, you're telling me that if someone pushes you off a cliff, you can't cast feather fall because you're in the process of falling. Either you have to cast feather fall before you get pushed, or can only cast it after you've landed. Both of these defeat the entire purpose of feather fall.

Doesn't make sense to me, since when is falling an action that has to be waited on to cast featherfall with? If anything I'd call falling a "condition," which it isnt even that.

Fax Celestis
2010-08-24, 05:25 PM
Doesn't make sense to me, since when is falling an action that has to be waited on to cast featherfall with? If anything I'd call falling a "condition."

Since when is "being shot at" an action that has to be waited on to cast Abrupt Jaunt with? If anything I'd call being shot at a "condition".

Saph
2010-08-24, 05:26 PM
Basically, you're telling me that if someone pushes you off a cliff, you can't cast feather fall because you're in the process of falling. Either you have to cast feather fall before you get pushed, or can only cast it after you've landed. Both of these defeat the entire purpose of feather fall.

Nope. I'm saying that by RAW, moving in the middle of an attack does not stop the attack. If you disagree, find me a citation that says otherwise.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-24, 05:26 PM
how do you "fake" fire a longbow? :smallconfused:

That's what the feint maneuver is.
If you want an out-of-rules explanation, remember that pulling a bowstring is intense. If you go by the standards of the bows used in the english wars, the pull strength is easily over 100lb. (Remains of ancient bowmen showed men with incredibly strong arms and upper torsos), and the round of combat is just 6 seconds. If you pull the string in that interval, it's kinda easy to assume it's about to shoot.

Frosty
2010-08-24, 05:27 PM
I don't really agree with this. Full defence is a full round action used to assist against a multitude of attacks. Readying an action means you're focused on that single one attack. Even if not negated, it warrants more than a +4. And in the latter case, how do you "fake" fire a longbow? :smallconfused:
You're in the middle of a heated combat. The longbowman at his perch 100 ft away from you looks like he's pulling back his string and releasing. What do you do? Split second decision. Do you risk staying still? Do you dive away?

Real combat is scary.

Fax Celestis
2010-08-24, 05:27 PM
Nope. I'm saying that by RAW, moving in the middle of an attack does not stop the attack. If you disagree, find me a citation that says otherwise.

It doesn't stop the attack: the attack is headed to the wrong place.

Whammydill
2010-08-24, 05:27 PM
{Scrubbed}

Yukitsu
2010-08-24, 05:29 PM
That's what the feint maneuver is.
If you want an out-of-rules explanation, remember that pulling a bowstring is intense. If you go by the standards of the bows used in the english wars, the pull strength is easily over 100lb. (Remains of ancient bowmen showed men with incredibly strong arms and upper torsos), and the round of combat is just 6 seconds. If you pull the string in that interval, it's kinda easy to assume it's about to shoot.

Well yes, but what, you pretend to let go? How does that work? You make a funny face and spasm a bit? Seems a bit like a silly way to get your arm tired. I mean, a pulled bow did have a lot of pressure on the archers arm, but they could still take a few seconds to aim, and the ones that fire off 2 shots a round are already firing at pretty much the maximum realistic rate.


You're in the middle of a heated combat. The longbowman at his perch 100 ft away from you looks like he's pulling back his string and releasing. What do you do? Split second decision. Do you risk staying still? Do you dive away?

Real combat is scary.

Yeah, but you have this guy focusing on the one archer to the exclusion of everything else getting the same bonus as the guy focusing on the archer, 4 goblins, a troll and a sorcerer at the same time. One guy pointing a bow at you may be scary, but that's beans compared to dodging that and all the rest.

Fax Celestis
2010-08-24, 05:31 PM
Being shot at is someone's attack action?

Someone else's, who you may explicitly interrupt according to the rules for immediate actions.

{Scrubbed}

Snake-Aes
2010-08-24, 05:31 PM
Well yes, but what, you pretend to let go? How does that work? You make a funny face and spasm a bit? Seems a bit like a silly way to get your arm tired. I mean, a pulled bow did have a lot of pressure on the archers arm, but they could still take a few seconds to aim, and the ones that fire off 2 shots a round are already firing at pretty much the maximum realistic rate.

Because d&d is realistic.
And you would wait to see the bowstring being released to duck.

Frosty
2010-08-24, 05:32 PM
Well yes, but what, you pretend to let go? How does that work? You make a funny face and spasm a bit? Seems a bit like a silly way to get your arm tired. I mean, a pulled bow did have a lot of pressure on the archers arm, but they could still take a few seconds to aim, and the ones that fire off 2 shots a round are already firing at pretty much the maximum realistic rate.
He *does* let go, but since it's a fake shot he doesn't need to aim it much. And because he took the time to do a fake shot, he doesn't have as much time to actually fire. No full-attack for him. His only option now is to fire many arrows at once (like with Manyshot).

Saph
2010-08-24, 05:34 PM
It doesn't stop the attack: the attack is headed to the wrong place.

Ranged attacks such as longbows do not typically target places. They target creatures. If you Abrupt Jaunt, then before the Abrupt Jaunt, the attack is targeting your character. After you Abrupt Jaunt, the attack is targeting your character.

If you want to claim that by RAW, moving in the middle of an attack causes an auto-miss, you need to back it up. You've quoted rules that show that you can take an immediate action at any time. You have not quoted rules that show that spending such an action on a teleport forces an attack to miss.

Yukitsu
2010-08-24, 05:34 PM
He *does* let go, but since it's a fake shot he doesn't need to aim it much. And because he took the time to do a fake shot, he doesn't have as much time to actually fire. No full-attack for him. His only option now is to fire many arrows at once (like with Manyshot).

Wut. :smallconfused:

Actually, it occurs to me that this is perfectly fine, as this whole process takes longer than simply firing that extra shot. It gets wierd again when he actually has to go slower firing fake shots than he could fire real ones. Probably so he doesn't break his bow dry firing.

Whammydill
2010-08-24, 05:36 PM
Someone else's, who you may explicitly interrupt according to the rules for immediate actions.


{Scrubbed}

{Scrubbed}

As to the former quote, yes you interrupted the attack action and moved 10 feet away, now they can shift aim which isnt even an action and shoot you anyway as they resolve the interrupted action.

DanReiv
2010-08-24, 05:36 PM
You're wrong about the immediate action Fax, it's not a time warp.

You can AJ when you want, yes.

But that have to be before an action is declared against you, after an action is declared against you, but before it's resolved (the most usefull) or after an action is resolved.

By no way you get to dodge bullets. An archer picks a target, not a location (RAW). If you jaunt 10 feet away no cover after he declares his full attack, but before he rolled, he get to to full attack you.

If you jaunt after his roll then it doesn't matter, you may or may not be a porcupine already. You'll just jaunt with X arrow in the body.

Yukitsu
2010-08-24, 05:40 PM
You're wrong about the immediate action Fax, it's not a time warp.

You can AJ when you want, yes.

But that have to be before an action is declared against you, after an action is declared against you, but before it's resolved (the most usefull) or after an action is resolved.

By no way you get to dodge bullets. An archer picks a target, not a location (RAW). If you jaunt 10 feet away no cover after he declares his full attack, but before he rolled, he get to to full attack you.

If you jaunt after his roll then it doesn't matter, you may or may not be a porcupine already. You'll just jaunt with X arrow in the body.

I think this then goes down to "when is the arrow in the air" and "does it magically teleport into the enemy's spleen if it hits.", and possibly "do they autotrack moving targets."

In my view, arrows are in the air after declared, but before rolled. It hits when rolled (or misses). This means a bodyguard with a readied action can dive in front of the shot at this time.

I don't think arrows travel by some irrational teleport in the mechanical sense the instant they leave the bow. It seems unecessarily videogamish to reduce it down to that level.

I don't think they really track moving targets, or at least not to the point that it can intercept an individual diving away from them or teleporting aside, for the same reason as above.

tyckspoon
2010-08-24, 05:42 PM
You're wrong about the immediate action Fax, it's not a time warp.

You can AJ when you want, yes.

But that have to be before an action is declared against you, after an action is declared against you, but before it's resolved (the most usefull) or after an action is resolved.

By no way you get to dodge bullets. An archer picks a target, not a location (RAW). If you jaunt 10 feet away no cover after he declares his full attack, but before he rolled, he get to to full attack you.

If you jaunt after his roll then it doesn't matter, you may or may not be a porcupine already. You'll just jaunt with X arrow in the body.

Somewhere there is an explicit example in one of the 'how Immediate Actions work' sections of using an Immediate Energy Resistance spell against a dragon's breath *after you have rolled your Reflex save.* That is, there is enough time in between being burnt and actually suffering HP damage from it for you to use an Immediate action to defend yourself. Immediate actions do indeed chop time that finely, even though nothing else in D&D approaches near that level of granularity.

(I'm trying to remember where the heck that example is. Draconomicon, perhaps, as I do recall it dealing with breath weapons.)

Frosty
2010-08-24, 05:47 PM
I think this then goes down to "when is the arrow in the air" and "does it magically teleport into the enemy's spleen if it hits.", and possibly "do they autotrack moving targets."

In my view, arrows are in the air after declared, but before rolled. It hits when rolled (or misses). This means a bodyguard with a readied action can dive in front of the shot at this time.

I don't think arrows travel by some irrational teleport in the mechanical sense the instant they leave the bow. It seems unecessarily videogamish to reduce it down to that level.

I don't think they really track moving targets, or at least not to the point that it can intercept an individual diving away from them or teleporting aside, for the same reason as above.
There are rules for Soft Cover (which can be gained by having anothber body between you and the archer), so yes, there is time for a bodyguard to do something like that. The target receives a +4 bonus to AC due to soft cover.

Fax Celestis
2010-08-24, 05:47 PM
You're wrong about the immediate action Fax, it's not a time warp.

You can AJ when you want, yes.

But that have to be before an action is declared against you, after an action is declared against you, but before it's resolved (the most usefull) or after an action is resolved.

How exactly, then, does one use the immediate action counterspell provided by Noctumancer? If you can't interrupt the spell as it's being cast, then you either can't counter the spell because it hasn't been cast yet, or you can't counter the spell because its already gone off.

Frosty
2010-08-24, 05:48 PM
How exactly, then, does one use the immediate action counterspell provided by Noctumancer? If you can't interrupt the spell as it's being cast, then you either can't counter the spell because it hasn't been cast yet, or you can't counter the spell because its already gone off.
That is a good point. Spells generally take about 3 seconds to cast (standard action) which is why you're allowed to ready a Manyshot to try to disrupt them.

Yukitsu
2010-08-24, 05:51 PM
There are rules for Soft Cover (which can be gained by having anothber body between you and the archer), so yes, there is time for a bodyguard to do something like that. The target receives a +4 bonus to AC due to soft cover.

But it doesn't hit the cover. Which is erksome. Nor are people classed as soft cover. (and does a guy in fullplate count as full?)

I see no reason that if modern people can jump in front of bullets, one couldn't jump competently in front of a slower, larger, easier to see arrow. A 20% reduction non-stacking isn't exactly my idea of competence.

And even so, at what point do you do the dive? When the attack is declared, after it's rolled, after it's totalled? When?

Fax Celestis
2010-08-24, 05:52 PM
That is a good point. Spells generally take about 3 seconds to cast (standard action) which is why you're allowed to ready a Manyshot to try to disrupt them.

That in mind, you can therefore interrupt an action with an immediate action. So unless you're telling me that every ranger uses bows like they used guns in Wanted, arrows fly straight (well, in a parabolic arc) and don't curve.

Magnema
2010-08-24, 05:52 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is a representation of Saph's interpretation, using the Commoner Rail Gun for the sake of another example.

You do the standard Commoner Rail Gun setup: you line up a thousand commoners and pass a chicken along it. RAW, this works. Then, because the chicken is moving at however many miles an hour, logically, it would deal however many d6s of damage. However, you are changing from RAW to logic. Logically, the whole thing wouldn't work. By RAW, the chicken gets passed along at however many miles an hour, and then gets chucked into the wall for 1d3-2 or whatever damage. So, choose RAW or logic for your argument, not both simultaneously.

EDIT: I find that erksome as well, Yukitsu.

Saph
2010-08-24, 05:55 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is a representation of Saph's interpretation, using the Commoner Rail Gun for the sake of another example.

You do the standard Commoner Rail Gun setup: you line up a thousand commoners and pass a chicken along it. RAW, this works. Then, because the chicken is moving at however many miles an hour, logically, it would deal however many d6s of damage. However, you are changing from RAW to logic. Logically, the whole thing wouldn't work. By RAW, the chicken gets passed along at however many miles an hour, and then gets chucked into the wall for 1d3-2 or whatever damage. So, choose RAW or logic for your argument, not both simultaneously.

Yup, this. Physics and RAW don't mix.

Anyway, I'll drop out at this point. The single biggest reason I don't allow Abrupt Jaunt is that I don't want to have to deal with these sort of arguments. :smalltongue:

DanReiv
2010-08-24, 05:56 PM
Guys, you're thick, there's no such thing as arrow in the air by RAW :smallwink:

I'll break it down to you.

Option 1.

Julielf declares a full attack with his bow against Wee
Wee jaunts.
Julief still see Wee, and resolves his routine for X damage.

Option 2.

Julielf declares a full attack with his bow against Wee.
Julief resolves his routine and does X damage.
Wee jaunts with X damage.

AJ is OP enough why do you insist on giving it matrix like ability ?

Yukitsu
2010-08-24, 05:58 PM
Guys, you're thick, there's no such thing as arrow in the air by RAW :smallwink:

I'll break it down to you.

Option 1.

Julielf declares a full attack with his bow against Wee
Wee jaunts.
Julief still see Wee, and resolves his routine for X damage.

Option 2.

Julielf declares a full attack with his bow against Wee.
Julief resolves his routine and does X damage.
Wee jaunts with X damage.

AJ is OP enough why do you insist on giving it matrix like ability ?

Because every time my DM pulls it on me, it goes something like this:

DM: The evil wizard abrupt jaunts 10 feet away, dodging your swordblow.
Me: I throw my sword and 4 knives at him. I deal 150 damage.
DM: Oh... That kills him.

I think abrupt jaunt is one of a million abilities that actually works better against other casters, but does proportionately less against melee. Interpreting it as "does nothing at all vs. martial types" and "does too much against casters" doesn't really do anything to make it inferior to the other wizard options.

But then again, I also did spend 3 hours in character readying a withdraw vs an attack while chiding a guy about the benefits of ranged weapons.

jiriku
2010-08-24, 05:59 PM
Funny what I get from all this is that blatant adherance to "any time" thwarts all is viciously defended due to fear of AJ being taken down from omnipotently broken to just broken.


Ranged attacks such as longbows do not typically target places. They target creatures.


You're wrong about the immediate action Fax, it's not a time warp.

You can AJ when you want, yes.

But that have to be before an action is declared against you, after an action is declared against you, but before it's resolved (the most usefull) or after an action is resolved.


Come on people, this is disingenuous.

Look, let's put a common-sense example on this. Let's pretend that instead of being located in various parts of the world, we're all standing in a big empty field. On one end of that field stands FAX CELESTIS with a masterwork composite longbow. On the other end of the field is a big ole' archery target with a bulls-eye on it. In the middle of the field and off to one side stands SAPH. Now, here's what we do. FAX is going to fire off an arrow at the target, and SAPH is going to shout "NOW!" when the arrow passes her, but before it reaches the bull's eye target.

Would everyone agree that it is possible for Saph to do this in the real world?

-----------------
Ok, good. Now, let's imagine that when Saph shouts "NOW!", the target spontaneously teleports ten feet to the left. Is there any way in this blessed world that the arrow can possibly hit its target now without suddenly becoming the world's first wooden guided missile?

My common sense is tingling! It tells me that the arrow is in flight and can't change direction, and that Saph has just saved the life of this grateful archery target, which can now go home safely to its children and tell them how scary Fax Celestis is.

-------
Now, let's replace the spontaneously teleporting archery target with a conjurer, and replace Saph shouting "NOW!" with a use of Abrupt Jaunt, but let's assume that we're still in some kind of magical version of the real world in which time moves fluidly and no one has to "take an action" to do anything. Is the conjurer still safe to go home to his kids and tell scary stories about Fax's peerless archery? I think so.

-------
Now, let's take Fax and his bow and arrow and the conjurer with his Abrupt Jaunt and let's put them in the frame of D&D mechanics. If your answer to resolution of the above situation changes, I would politely suggest to you that your position may be losing sight of the forest for the trees.

Fax Celestis
2010-08-24, 06:10 PM
If your answer to resolution of the above situation changes, I would politely suggest to you that your position may be losing sight of the forest for the trees.

*brofist* tenchars

Zeful
2010-08-24, 06:14 PM
Except you've already fired at my old location.No. Abrupt Jaunt is not a reactionary ability. Like readied actions, Contingency, or even Attacks of Opportunity which take place before the action that triggers them. Abrupt Jaunt isn't triggered by another action, so it can't preempt other actions.


Slow it down a little and look at it this way: if you cast delayed blast fireball, and I move out of the area before it goes off, am I still affected even though I'm inside the spell's range? No, because I'm not in its area of effect anymore.

Similarly, then, if you shoot arrows at me and I move out of the area I was standing in, Am I still affected even though I'm inside your bow's range? No, because I'm not in the area you were aiming at anymore.Apples to Oranges. The first situation is reacting to a timed obstacle. The second is responding to the appearance of Danger.


I see all these arguments for ranged attackers. What happens if fighter charges me, and I jaunt in such a way that I am no longer a legal target for his charge?Since the charger hasn't moved (movement is part of the charge action) he can still select any other enemy in the area and charge to them.


To be frank, immediate actions happen immediately: that's why they're called immediate actions. Unless you want to tell me a wizard who casts feather fall in response to being bull-rushed off a cliff can't cast it before hitting the ground because the triggering effect already was rolled and took place? Or that a wizard can't cast nerveskitter before rolling initiative because combat already initiated, too bad?Nerveskitter has a specific exception to the normal rules that allow you to cast it when Initiative rolls have been called for but before they have been rolled. As for Feather Fall, you can cast it before you are hit by the bull-rush or after the bull rush. And as for being Immediate, it is, but since it's not a triggered action, it has to be activated before the action you wish to avoid with it occurs.


Isn't it so much easier and simpler to just skip all that contorted logic and just say "AJ lets you dodge any attack, and I think that's too powerful so I'm going to unapologetically nerf it in the following way." ?Because Abrupt Jaunt doesn't cause the attack to land.

Let's look at a different example . I have a Contingent Teleport to move me 40,000 miles away from to a safe place to rest (at least 1,000ft of that distance is above the target location), the condition is set to "When I am struck by a ranged attack". When a Ranged attack hits me what happens? Well it would have to hit me, to even trigger the action, so Contingency moves it's action between me being targeted by the attack (which is not an action), and the attack's resolution (which is), and resolves, moving me to my targeted destination. Now, considering my new location am I a valid target for the attack that has been already resolved (which it has to be in order for my contingency to activate)? No, I'm thousands of miles away falling from a random distance in the air, no longer within the bows maximum range, the roll is insufficient to hit me.

As for the common sense argument. This is D&D common sense simply doesn't apply.

Fax Celestis
2010-08-24, 06:17 PM
No. Abrupt Jaunt is not a reactionary ability. Like readied actions, Contingency, or even Attacks of Opportunity which take place before the action that triggers them. Abrupt Jaunt isn't triggered by another action, so it can't preempt other actions.I've demonstrated why this isn't the case earlier in this thread. If it were to act before a triggering action, a noctumancer couldn't counter spells as an immediate action and feather fall would go off before you left the ground. The only actions that go before their triggers are AoOs, and they explicitly say they do. An immediate action happens when you use it, not before the trigger (like an AoO), or after (like a delay).


Let's look at a different example . I have a Contingent Teleport to move me 40,000 miles away from to a safe place to rest (at least 1,000ft of that distance is above the target location), the condition is set to "When I am struck by a ranged attack".

A better comparison contingency trigger would be "When an arrow is fired at me."

jiriku
2010-08-24, 06:17 PM
*brofist* tenchars

http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab24/gallopinggiraffes/brofist.jpg

Zeful
2010-08-24, 06:30 PM
I've demonstrated why this isn't the case earlier in this thread. If it were to act before a triggering action, a noctumancer couldn't counter spells as an immediate action and feather fall would go off before you left the ground. The only actions that go before their triggers are AoOs, and they explicitly say they do. An immediate action happens when you use it, not before the trigger (like an AoO), or after (like a delay).True, but from a rules perspective, it doesn't matter when you use the Jaunt as long as you use it before the attack has resolved, because after it's resolved, Jaunt can't go back and make it miss, only a triggered action can (though a readied action to Jaunt would allow you to dodge an attack after it has resolved).

The point about the Noctumancer and Feather fall only prove that WoTC doesn't read their own rules.


A better comparison contingency trigger would be "When an arrow is fired at me."
The difference is immaterial because until the attack is resolved, the arrow isn't actually in-flight from a rules perspective.

jiriku
2010-08-24, 07:02 PM
You lost me when you said common sense doesn't apply. At that point, my head exploded, but since by RAW the dead can take actions, I just drowned myself in a bucket of water in order to heal. I pulled infinite copper pieces from my spell component pouch and hired enough commoners to make a commoner railgun, hoping to stop you by shooting you with it, but despite traveling fast enough to dilate time itself, the rail just dropped on the ground when the last commoner released it. I tried to summon Pazuzu in order to acquire infinite godlike power, but not being a kobold it didn't work out for me.

Apparently common sense doesn't apply.

Oslecamo
2010-08-24, 07:12 PM
Apparently common sense doesn't apply.

Considering we're discussing magic, yes, common sense doesn't apply. You can't just ignore physics (the abrupt jaunt itself) and then go back to follow them (everything happens in real continuous time) when it suits you. The rules say he can change position? Fine. The rules also say he's still a valid target for the archer unless he got behind cover. Don't ask the physics behind it. A ranger did it.:smalltongue:

jiriku
2010-08-24, 07:56 PM
But the rules don't state that arrows teleport! Oh...nevermind. We are all fanatics lobbing rhetorical grenades at one another at this point. There's enough material in this thread by now for reasonable people to make up their own minds and unreasonable people to reassure themselves that they're right. I suppose that we really can't expect to accomplish more than that.

Zeful
2010-08-24, 08:01 PM
But the rules don't state that arrows teleport! Oh...nevermind. We are all fanatics lobbing rhetorical grenades at one another at this point. There's enough material in this thread by now for reasonable people to make up their own minds and unreasonable people to reassure themselves that they're right. I suppose that we really can't expect to accomplish more than that.

The rules also don't say when the arrow is fired either. It only needs to teleport if you assume that selecting a target for the attack releases an arrow, which since it is not the attack itself, it doesn't. Since you don't actually lose an arrow from your inventory until the attack is resolved (hit or miss), it further corroborates the view point that the arrow isn't shot until the attack is resolved.

Yukitsu
2010-08-24, 08:03 PM
I'm still putting that logic in with the drowning to heal and actions after death one. Though I think I did once see a feat that only worked if you could take actions while dead....

Zeful
2010-08-24, 08:19 PM
Why? What about the logic of the Archer doesn't shoot until the attack roll is resolved is abhorrent to you? Or is this an extension of the "Mundane characters have to act exactly like they do in reality despite that there are at least 15 levels of the class in which have no direct correlation to any historical figure, real or mythological, while magic users are allowed to do what ever's cool" double-standard that is prevalent in 3.5, colloquially known as "Melee can't have nice things"? Because quite frankly that's all I can see the objections as, Abrupt Jaunt was cool, it invalidated pretty much everything other than another caster, but apparently everyone was reading it wrong and it can't do that, so now it "doesn't make sense" that it doesn't make a caster invincible.

Yukitsu
2010-08-24, 08:27 PM
What's abhorrent about it is that you're basically saying arrows magic teleport into people. And what's worse, is that a core mundane can no longer bodyguard at all, as opposed to just ineffectively like they could previously.

This effect doesn't do much vs. mundanes. At the earliest levels, it can shut down melee as well as readied 5 foot steps, and it can halve ranged damage, but as those levels are basically a crap shoot, when you get into those levels where class and ability selection really makes all the difference, it's the weakest counter a wizard has against melee types that could exist. And you're sacking two schools to qualify, which hurts more at these levels as well.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-24, 08:30 PM
Losing two schools varies widely in how badly it hurts you, especially when level range is considered. Necromancy is almost worthless at low levels, fantastic in the low-mid level range, and becomes worthless again when opponents can easily sport Death Ward effects. Likewise, Enchantment is awesome for the first half of the game or so but falls off when Mind Blank and immunity to Mind-affecting become prevalent. Evocation is mostly replaced by Conjuration unless you're running Core-only, thanks to Craft Contingent Spell.

Yukitsu
2010-08-24, 08:36 PM
That's why I said moving up from low to high. Just giving out carte blanche at level 15 opens up all sorts of builds that just aren't feasible for play from 1-15. Same with schools. It's hard to decide if you're going to lose a school that's great early, or one that swings to great later.

Zeful
2010-08-24, 08:42 PM
What's abhorrent about it is that you're basically saying arrows magic teleport into people.
No, I am not! :smallannoyed: If you wish to misrepresent my argument at least find something within the rules that I am wrong about to go with the blatant strawman. I am saying that short of deliberately watching and preparing for an archer to shoot you, forgoing any other action (readied action), you will not dodge a shot (odds are even then he's still likely to hit), because he might somehow be competent despite not being able to cast spells.


And what's worse, is that a core mundane can no longer bodyguard at all, as opposed to just ineffectively like they could previously.Against a caster, a mundane character was powerless and ineffective across all levels without a mage standing behind him (either through magic gear, or buffs cast on them) simply because of two spells Fly (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fly.htm), and Wind wall (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/windwall.htm).


This effect doesn't do much vs. mundanes. At the earliest levels, it can shut down melee as well as readied 5 foot steps, and it can halve ranged damage, but as those levels are basically a crap shoot, when you get into those levels where class and ability selection really makes all the difference, it's the weakest counter a wizard has against melee types that could exist. And you're sacking two schools to qualify, which hurts more at these levels as well.So it's the weakest option available to a wizard. Then why are Earth are you arguing that it's as good as a third level spell to counter archery with?

Doug Lampert
2010-08-24, 08:52 PM
But the rules don't state that arrows teleport! Oh...nevermind. We are all fanatics lobbing rhetorical grenades at one another at this point. There's enough material in this thread by now for reasonable people to make up their own minds and unreasonable people to reassure themselves that they're right. I suppose that we really can't expect to accomplish more than that.

But the rules DO state that the arrow targets a creature, not a space, unless you're targetting something with total concealment in which case you do target a space. (And hit the concealed creature 50% of the time regardless of the size of the creature.)

So let's use game rules to settle this. We ALL KNOW that it makes NO SENSE for the arrow to target a creature and abrupt jaunt to not work against it if you can actually jaunt in the middle of the shot, but the only way we KNOW that abrupt jaunt is that quick is RAW, so why accept RAW that you can jaunt at ANY TIME and insist on this even though falling prone ought to be as fast as any spell, but then reject RAW as to the consequences of what happens when you jaunt?

You've accepted one absurdity and yell RAW for why, but then you reject RAW because its absurd for a different aspect of THE EXACT SAME EVENT!

The arrow targets a creature, the creature is still a legal target for the arrow, therefor the arrow hits the creature. This RESOLVES the problem of a magic missile vs. abrupt jaunt, of charm person vs. abrupt jaunt, and of scorching ray vs. abrupt jaunt. ALL of which will otherwise be a problem as we argue about how instant those spell's effects are and whether they target a space or a creature.

The rules TELL us if the target is a space or a creature, so we use the rules, because otherwise EVERY ranged spell that target's a creature needs an individual ruling as to whether it's arrow-like and "actually" targeted the place the creature used to occupy or is a homing missile that follows the character.

DougL

Yukitsu
2010-08-24, 08:57 PM
No, I am not! :smallannoyed: If you wish to misrepresent my argument at least find something within the rules that I am wrong about to go with the blatant strawman. I am saying that short of deliberately watching and preparing for an archer to shoot you, forgoing any other action (readied action), you will not dodge a shot (odds are even then he's still likely to hit), because he might somehow be competent despite not being able to cast spells.

And if the individual didn't teleport aside, he most certainly would have, likely no matter how improbable the shot if he was in any way an archery style build.


Against a caster, a mundane character was powerless and ineffective across all levels without a mage standing behind him (either through magic gear, or buffs cast on them) simply because of two spells Fly (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fly.htm), and Wind wall (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/windwall.htm).

That was a statement that a mundane body guard cannot protect another individual against mundane arrows. Or rays for that matter.


So it's the weakest option available to a wizard. Then why are Earth are you arguing that it's as good as a third level spell to counter archery with?

Yeah, because I can totally dodge all 5 arrows with one jaunt like I could deflect with wind wall, and it totally has a long duration that will last the entire combat.

Fiery Diamond
2010-08-24, 09:27 PM
Let me just say that I'm on the side of those saying that you can avoid the arrow.


Where are the opponents of this view getting the idea that the attack is not made until it is resolved?

Some PvP...
Archer: I shoot Mage. (in game world: the shot is fired)
DM: Okay, now roll your attack. (in game world: the arrow is traveling)
Archer: *gets ready to roll* (in game world: the arrow is traveling)
Mage: I abrupt jaunt out of the way. (in game world: the mage ajs)
DM: Okay, don't bother rolling, the attack misses. You gonna shoot him again or what? (in game world: the attack misses. It becomes irrelevant whether the attack missed because the archer aimed wrong or because the arrow passed through where the character was just a moment before)

As for it targeting a character, not a location... It targets a character, yes, but it does not necessarily hit the character. To compare/contrast to other things... (assuming in each case that you're still a valid target)

Magic Missile: Still hits. It is already guaranteed to hit; it is in effect a heat-seeking missile that changes direction.
Scorching Ray: Misses. Your DM can of course claim your character doesn't have the reflexes necessary, but that would be houseruling.
Charm Person: Still hits. Like Magic Missile, it was guaranteed to hit anyway.

Kyeudo
2010-08-25, 04:12 AM
When people try to mix logic and common sense with the RAW, you get 6 page arguments and plenty of exploded cat-girls. Please think of the cat-girls.

How about we take a moment to look at how things stand:

In a universe where the RAW is all that exists, Abrupt Jaunt can only dodge ranged attacks when it can make the attacks invalid, much like how it dodges melee attacks. This does create "Patriot Arrows" and what not, but that's what the RAW tells us happens.

In a universe where common sense may or may not exist, depending upon how much the GM and the players brought with them to the game, there may exist a moment between a shot being fired and the attack actually hitting. If you allow such a moment to exist, then yes, Abrupt Jaunt should totally let you perfectly negate any attack, since you were somewhere else when the attack was supposed to land.

Which is better for balance? Decide for yourself based on the power level of your game. However, do be aware that the "common sense" interpretation makes Wizards even more like unto gods than they already were and that you can use the RAW to shoot that interpretation to pieces if you care to.

Oslecamo
2010-08-25, 04:28 AM
In a universe where common sense may or may not exist, depending upon how much the GM and the players brought with them to the game, there may exist a moment between a shot being fired and the attack actually hitting. If you allow such a moment to exist, then yes, Abrupt Jaunt should totally let you perfectly negate any attack, since you were somewhere else when the attack was supposed to land.

Again, why can the wizard break the laws of reality nilly willy into little pieces and the archer can't just be so good that he makes his arrows change flight mid air?


However, do be aware that the "common sense" interpretation makes Wizards even more like unto gods than they already were and that you can use the RAW to shoot that interpretation to pieces if you care to.

+100 to this. If you allow casters to be the only ones to be able to bend/break reality whitout drawbacks of course they'll dominate everything. But melees can also bend some reality of their own like swimming into lava and falling off mountains and living to tell the tale whitout need of cheap magic. Because they're just that badass.:smallbiggrin:

Otherwise we get stuff like:
Wizard I summon an air elemental!
Fighter: I hit it with my sword!
Wizard: sorry, but hurting something made of air with a pointy stick totally doesn't make sense!
Fighter: Soo, how am I suposed to defeat it?
Wizard: You don't! Nyargh nyargh nyargh!

Kyeudo
2010-08-25, 04:31 AM
Again, why can the wizard break the laws of reality nilly willy into little pieces and the archer can't just be so good that he makes his arrows change flight mid air?

He can be. He just needs to be a 4th level Arcane Archer to learn that trick. Of course, now that I said that, some CharOp veteran will come and tell me that for the price of two feats and a one night stand with a demon, you can pick up that trick at level 1.

Oslecamo
2010-08-25, 04:44 AM
No need for the feats or the demon night stand. It's on the basic combat options!:smallcool:

After all, I must remind you characters in D&D are suposed to be always moving and not standing still as practice targets. If the archer can somehow hit the running tumbling rogue blurring trough the battlefield why should abrupt jaunt be harder to counter?

Mongoose87
2010-08-25, 07:44 AM
No need for the feats or the demon night stand. It's on the basic combat options!:smallcool:

After all, I must remind you characters in D&D are suposed to be always moving and not standing still as practice targets. If the archer can somehow hit the running tumbling rogue blurring trough the battlefield why should abrupt jaunt be harder to counter?

You can track the rogue, as he moves. Abrupt Jaunt happens somewhat more... abruptly.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-25, 08:47 AM
Screw it. We've already gone from examining underrated alternatives to teleporting magical grenades or some such.

So...can you interrupt an immediate action with an immediate action?

You cast lightning bolt. Target mage jaunts 10 feet to the left. This happens "before" the bolt. Can you interrupt to also jaunt 10 feet to match, and what happens then?

Fax Celestis
2010-08-25, 09:11 AM
You cast lightning bolt. Target mage jaunts 10 feet to the left. This happens "before" the bolt. Can you interrupt to also jaunt 10 feet to match, and what happens then?
ag asdfhh aqhAQh Ahy aAERG AGR AAG ARY Aag aery a

no

it doesn't

the only action that happens before the triggering action is an attack of opportunity

immediate actions are not attacks of opportunity

immediate actions happen during their triggering act, not before

true_shinken
2010-08-25, 09:41 AM
Which is better for balance? Decide for yourself based on the power level of your game. However, do be aware that the "common sense" interpretation makes Wizards even more like unto gods than they already were and that you can use the RAW to shoot that interpretation to pieces if you care to.

Abolutely true, couldn't agree more with you, you rock, please give me an autograph.

Doug Lampert
2010-08-25, 11:07 AM
As for it targeting a character, not a location... It targets a character, yes, but it does not necessarily hit the character. To compare/contrast to other things... (assuming in each case that you're still a valid target)

It does if he's a valid target and you make the to hit roll! That's what the rules say.


Magic Missile: Still hits. It is already guaranteed to hit; it is in effect a heat-seeking missile that changes direction.

And WHERE is the rule that indicates that Magic Missile is a heat seaking missile? I must have missed that because it's not in my rulebook.


Scorching Ray: Misses. Your DM can of course claim your character doesn't have the reflexes necessary, but that would be houseruling.

How so? What RULE are you changing? And how do you know there is ANY time between the ray being shot and impacting.

Since the rules DON'T SAY that the ray takes any time at all it's a houserule to say you can dodge while it's coming. Not to follow the actual RULES, which only talk about the spell failing for non-valid targets or due to actually missing because you didn't roll high enough or something gave a miss chance.

Abrupt Jaunt doesn't give a miss chance. Your claim is the houserule and has NO rules support whatsoever.


Charm Person: Still hits. Like Magic Missile, it was guaranteed to hit anyway.

Again, PROVE IT by the rules! The Charm person requires that you know where the target is. And he isn't where you thought in much the same way he wasn't for the arrow. Why does one attack CLEARLY STATED to target a creature target the creature while another somehow targets the creature only if he doesn't move?

In any case. This gets back to "just how instant is 'any time'".

It's not more instant than dropping prone, which is a free action rather than a swift, it's even FASTER than jaunting. So if you can jaunt away from an arrow then you can drop and make it miss too. You and others are INSISTING that the RAW saying "anytime" means while the arrow is in flight, despite the fact that the RAW don't indicate that the arrow ever is in flight to be dodged any more than they indicate that a charm person is ever in flight.

Frosty
2010-08-25, 11:50 AM
Are you suggesting that you cna make magic missile miss by readying an action to Move away as well? After all, the. target isn't there anymore

true_shinken
2010-08-25, 11:55 AM
Are you suggesting that you cna make magic missile miss by readying an action to Move away as well? After all, the. target isn't there anymore

This happens a lot on D&D discussions that involve both magic and mundane things. Everyone decides to apply logic to the mundane side... but magic? We don't have to explain it (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OneMoreDay).

Zeful
2010-08-25, 01:07 PM
This happens a lot on D&D discussions that involve both magic and mundane things. Everyone decides to apply logic to the mundane side... but magic? We don't have to explain it (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OneMoreDay).

Exactly this is the "Melee can't have nice things" Double standard I pointed out earlier. Every one trips over each other to limit mundane characters based on the ridiculous metric of "Reality" but limiting a caster in anyway is a "blatant misinterpretation of the printed rules" (which while not a direct quote of anyone in the thread, seems to be a prevailing mindset of the people who think that Abrupt Jaunt can dodge attacks without making you an invalid target for the attack in question).

Thinker
2010-08-25, 01:56 PM
Exactly this is the "Melee can't have nice things" Double standard I pointed out earlier. Every one trips over each other to limit mundane characters based on the ridiculous metric of "Reality" but limiting a caster in anyway is a "blatant misinterpretation of the printed rules" (which while not a direct quote of anyone in the thread, seems to be a prevailing mindset of the people who think that Abrupt Jaunt can dodge attacks without making you an invalid target for the attack in question).

I think it is probably because of the text (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#immediateActions) of Immediate Action, where it says:


Immediate Actions

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. Casting feather fall is an immediate action, since the spell can be cast at any time.

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 flat-footed.


Any time does seem to imply that you no longer have to be in the path of the arrow if you do it after the arrow is fired, but before it reaches you.

The text for a ranged attack and for attack rollsreads (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#attack):


Ranged Attacks

With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon’s maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is ten range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions.
Attack Rolls

An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent.

Your attack roll is 1d20 + your attack bonus with the weapon you’re using. If the result is at least as high as the target’s AC, you hit and deal damage.

From a strict reading of the rules, you hit your target. It doesn't matter if the target is no longer in your line of sight or if he moved out of the way of the arrow. Ranged attacks hit instantaneously.

Readying (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm#ready) actions doesn't seem to change this and requires a standard action, no matter what type of action you are readying. It even states that the readied action takes place before the action that it interrupts (and if possible, the action goes ahead unhindered):


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. 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.

You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don’t otherwise move any distance during the round.


My conclusion is that by RAW, attacks are essentially instantaneous and cannot be interrupted by merely changing position if the target remains in range and line of sight for the attack. Abrupt Jaunt does not save the spellcaster from being hit with arrows unless he jaunts to behind concealment/cover, but can save him from being hit in melee. If you think about this logically and separate it from RAW, the spellcaster should be able to avoid being attacked (as should anyone who readies to dodge an arrow).

true_shinken
2010-08-25, 02:02 PM
My conclusion is that by RAW, attacks are essentially instantaneous and cannot be interrupted by merely changing position if the target remains in range and line of sight for the attack. Abrupt Jaunt does not save the spellcaster from being hit with arrows unless he jaunts to behind concealment/cover, but can save him from being hit in melee. If you think about this logically and separate it from RAW, the spellcaster should be able to avoid being attacked (as should anyone who readies to dodge an arrow).

That's the position both me and Zeful are defending. Other posters complain 'this does not make sense'.

Zeful
2010-08-25, 02:09 PM
He was objecting to my assertion that people who think that Abrupt Jaunt can dodge ranged attacks want to artificially limit mundane characters while deliberately empowering a caster ability without any rules support.

Thinker
2010-08-25, 02:09 PM
That's the position both me and Zeful are defending. Other posters complain 'this does not make sense'.

I'm aware of that, but his post gave me a nice spot to latch onto. Ultimately reviewing the rules supported your position.

Common sense has little to do with RAW or discussions of RAW, but it can be useful as advice or for a real game adjudication.