My @!@#! Player abusing Feather Fall

[drnuncheon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Retrieve a components (free action)

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sullivan]

What happens if the spell caster is grappled?

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

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

What happens if the spell caster is taking continuous damage?

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

Now as for the first paragraph of that section:

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

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

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

 

[KarinsDad]

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

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

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

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

Also:

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

Quickened spells do not provoke an attack of opportunity.


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

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

 

[sullivan]

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

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

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

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

 

[KarinsDad]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[sullivan]

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

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

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

This IS very explicit. The DC applies for damage from a readied action in response to the spell being cast for spells with a casting time of one action. Period. There was no need to call out "spells with a casting time of 1 action" if it applied to all spells.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Mistwell]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[KarinsDad]

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

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

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

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

We have 4 bits of information here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

 

[MeiRen]

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

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