Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7573518" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Sigh... what is the assumption? The opponent is standing stock still until he declares an action?"In combat, characters and monsters are in constant motion, often using movement and position to gain the upper hand."What if the opposing character says "when I am in combat as non-action I move my hand back and forth repeatedly towards my component pouch"? After all, we have pretty established that even changing hands of weapons is non-action, not interaction. A typical combat encounter is a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting. "What if we say..."Even when I am casting verbal only spells, I reach for my component pouch, maybe even draw stuff but I will tell you those.""Your turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move"What if I say..."I routinely spout arcane words and fragments of verbal component during combat before and after casting, usually brief utterances.These may include gestures.""You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn."What if I say "Even with the component pouch thing, I will reach for it usually more than once before I actually draw **as part of casting** the components."Or, what if I say "I keep a wand focus  in one hand and reach for components with the other."Etc etc etc etc...Sooner or later this word game of scrabble-fu to get to actual casting is seen as not "clever not "tactics but just dueling linguistics.Like I said before, if you want there are much better ways to get a more action- based resolution system and an actor-basedvone with strong empowered ready-interrupts heads into the worst of both worlds- in my experience- creating an arms race of rules-fu code words instead of tactical play.Some may like it but then some like rules-fu playstyle. Lots of guys loved in other systems moving st dpeeds 5-6 but getting 7 moves as if theh moved speed 7. Heck, I knew one guy who on his move on his turn counted out loud 1-2-3-4 as he moved thru a path but whren immediately after another player counter the same 1-2-3-4 tried to argue that path was 5, not 4.You specifically use "after the first attack in a multi-attack." Others do too. But if it's a 2nd level fighter with one attack...  what then? If cast a spell is only one spell per action, it's like the one attack attack action, not the multi-attack.Constructing individual component as a different stage like they are each attacks in a multi-attack is imaginative, but not the rules. I think it might be more tile in PF2 tho.As others have said, if your trigger is "gestures like spells" and ready then resolves after that finishes- what is it you think finishing the gestures of a spell results in? In my gsmes, when the gestures end, spell happens.The rule stating the ready and other unspecified reactions occur after their trigger finishes is rendered meaningless if a trigger can be defined as "starting to..." and that be seen as "before it finishes."By all means- go for it. House rule away til you got the exceptions to exceptions and linguitics-fu combat tour de force. Call it clever or tactical play. Whatever.</blockquote>

Verification