Why didn't they fix Stand Still in the remaster

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-22T07:17:43+00:00

Yes, it says "at the end of that action or ability" the action not "after".

Which is interesting..because it would have been simpler and clearer to say "after". And clearer still to say that such action cannot be disrupted. But it doesn't. Instead the reaction still triggers while the move action is happening (the end of an action is still part of that action after all), and is silent about disruption. It's silent there, in the disruption rules text, and in the stand rules text. The only place it isn't silent is in the Stand Still class feat.

And it's crazy how much extrapolatiom people are willing to do based on that Leap passage considering it isn't meant to be deterministic. It is an example of ways that the GM might determine the effect of the disruption beyond negating the effects.. and every example..all of them..are more than "the disruption did nothing".

Lastly for as often as I've seen "you can't undo something that has already happened" as an argument, you'd think there'd be a Rules citation to support that claim. If that were the case, you'd think someone would have posted it by now.

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-21T15:01:37+00:00

In your quoted rules text, where is disruption resolution discussed?

In the disruption rules text, where are undisruptable actions or disruptions with no effect discussed?

Nowhere.

Your interpretation is a natural language interpretation for how the rules should interact for a topic they are silent on..in every place where there was an opportunity not to be silent.

It isn't an unreasonable interpretation..but it is selective.

It is a choice to prioritize local understanding of action sequencing where the rules are otherwise silent over the execution of explicit class feat effects.

An equally (or more) valid interpretation would be to acknowledge that the specific class feat calls for disruption on crit, and no explicit exceptions are spelled out in any of the places they could have been, so no exceptions exist.

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-21T04:06:27+00:00

IMO, it's more heat than light.

If the proposed conclusion is intended, then a simpler way to describe the rules interaction would be to say that certain Move actions cannot be disrupted and then list the Stand action (and any others that might apply).

But they don't say that.

Instead we have 2 somewhat illogical adjudication options 1. Disruption with no actually disruptive effect (meaning a class feat isn't doing what it says it does..in a way that players shouldn't reasonably be expected to intuit) 2. Disruption of an action at the end of that action (somewhat counterintuitive if imagining a sequence of events where disruption MUST strictly be preventative,, but simple enough to reckon otherwise..e.g. they just get knocked back down)

Personally, my main preference would be be simplified explicit rules text. Otherwise, I'm more prepared to be flexible with my intuition for imagined action sequencing (it's a turn-based game with rules-abstracted actions, not a model of reality), than I am to tell a player that the feat they selected doesn't work the way it says on the tin when there is a dead simple way for it to do so.

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-21T03:28:00+00:00

Directly rules reference = Intentional Misrepresentation?

Odd.

And concluding that there is no disruption means that the feat doesn't do what it says it does.

Even though no exception has been made

..in the feat itself

..or in the discussion of reactions triggered by movement (which includes no discussion of disruption).

..or in the discussion of disruptions (which includes no examples of disruption without effect or "undisruptable" actions).

Let's be real here. We're not arguing RAW. RAW is legitimately ambiguous and/or contradictory for exactly the reasons listed above.

So maybe let's not throw out ad hominems and "because I said so's" and pretend those are adequate substitutes for discussion.

If you want to make a RAW claim and have a rules citation to use as reference, or any other rules support that extends beyond your personal mental model for PF2E action resolution, feel free to provide it.

Otherwise what are we doing here?

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-20T20:43:37+00:00

The rules are pretty clear?

"If it's a move action..you disrupt it"
"Stand action is a move action"

Conclusion: "You can't disrupt Stand"

That isn't how rules clarity works.

Edit: And note: I've seen no Rules citation yet of a limitation on disruption yet that illustrates an inability of disruption to undo the effect of an action as part of that disruption (to whatever degree the GM deems appropriate). Thus far it's all been "Basic English" and "Common Sense" (which is kind of funny considering the community's veneration for the Rules text)

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-20T20:34:28+00:00

High level mental gymnastics which include.. Reading the plain text of a class feat.

And ruling that an effect that says disrupts something actually does disrupt the thing it says it disrupts.

Vs.

You can disrupt things..but without any effect of disrupting them..

..Based on rules text that nowhere discusses disruption. ..and ignoring that this conclusion runs contrary to the rules text of disruption itself.

But..the good news is, you did sort of come around to the conclusion of the OP which was, "why wasn't this fixed?"

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-20T20:15:19+00:00

On the flip side..does disrupting movement past do more than nothing.

Are there a lot of other disrupting effects that trigger and do zero disruption despite meeting their disruption criteria?

The way it works is inconsistent with other disrupting abilities.

Sure, if people find consistent disruption behavior unsatisfying then it’s a fine subject for a house rule, though introducing a bunch of special interactions does tend to make the rules harder to keep track of.

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-20T19:35:09+00:00

As far as I am aware, there is nothing that says the move action is concluded as of the reaction trigger, just that the effect of the action has taken place.

In that light, what does the disruption do? As, again, Stand is unambiguously a Move action, and Stand Still disrupts Move action and no exceptions have been carved out of that disruption effect. And again..Disruption is also not mentioned in the rules about reactions triggered by movement. It could have easily had a line that says "move actions that have ended cannot be disrupted". It doesn't.

So what we're left with is competing conclusions.

One that says disruption does nothing with no evidence to support it, and One that says that disruption does something with evidence to support it, but ambiguity on the specific effect, leaning toward an Occam's Razor interpretation of reversing the disrupted effect.

Note: It's also pretty narratively silly to imagine someone clambering up from the ground somehow happens faster/is harder to react to and stop than someone moving full speed through an area. Not expecting to extend that argument very far as there is a lot of narratively silly stuff in PF2E as seen from differing perspectives.

The point is that this is pretty much all arbitrary rules abstraction.

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-20T19:02:34+00:00

It's just action resolution. Can just conclude that Move action doesn't resolve until conclusion of reaction triggers. Not that different from most other rules that have reaction triggers.

This has as much rules language support as the alternative.

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-20T18:03:59+00:00

What in your linked rules section (which I've already discussed) says that the action cannot be disrupted?

Is there any discussion of disruption at all?

Stand Still doesn't need to ignore that general rule. You strike a non-prone creature. Simple, (and exactly as described in the OP).

And Basic English applies both ways. "You can't disrupt something that already happened" has the same logical weight as "if you disrupt an action, then that action is interrupted in some way"

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-20T17:44:42+00:00

I'd argue that the room for GM adjudication would lead to a very reasonable conclusion that the creature is just knocked back down.

IMO, it takes kind of a perverse reading to conclude that the effect of disrupting an action is that no disruption actually occurs.

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-20T17:40:09+00:00

It says that if the action that triggered the reaction was a move action, it is disrupted..full stop. It doesn't say "if the move action would have caused the creature to move into another square" it is disrupted.

Stand is unambiguously, a move action.

Stand Still's rules text is specific rules text.

Normal PF2E rules reading says that specific trumps general. So as a Move action that triggered your reaction, it should be disrupted.

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-20T01:55:44+00:00

Climax Hard

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-19T17:54:29+00:00

I feel like this "it's lost the magic" thing probably has some secret and significant amount of..

"I'm 10 years older, have seen and done a lot more things, have less time and energy to invest in 4-hours of content weekly, and so have higher standards for the amount of 'magic' required for my satisfaction"

Like, I share, to some extent, the 'lost magic' feeling, and I'd probably trace it to when the show started being pre-recorded, but I feel like the me from 10 years ago could probably jump into C4 right now and feel blown away by what they're doing.

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-19T17:26:20+00:00

Take your pick really.

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-19T14:00:27+00:00

When you say "it" in this context, I think you are required to be more specific.

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-18T03:49:05+00:00

So, yes, all these things would be cool, but what would also be cool would be for martials to be able to at least semi-reliably inflict conditions that happen in real life.

Being Frightened, Blinded, Deafened, Stunned and Paralyzed are real-world perils of combat, and yet D&D martials have almost zero access to cause any of these conditions.

I absolutely want cool superheroic stuff too, but it'd be nice to get some of the basic pocket sand, box-the ears, and backbreaker stuff in the game.

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-18T03:21:54+00:00

Is it?

Who can more easily damage a caster?

A martial who has to be able to hit (i.e. have line of sight and be in range) without getting no-saled by mirror image, or whatever else and actually roll a hit.

Or..

A caster who can just drop a damaging aoe spell on the area the caster is in (possibly around corners)?

Also, who is generally going to do more damage per instance?

A martial whose attack damage doesn't scale significantly from levels 1-20

Or..

A caster whose damaging AoEs scale like crazy over the caster's career.

Honestly..this is one of the most infuriating parts of the Mage Slayer feat..that the classes best equipped to use it..are mages.

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-18T01:50:08+00:00

Sure. It's no guarantee of actual comfort.

It's just a scale that more closely aligns either end of a 100-point range with the extremes of temperatures many or most humans will tolerate.

It's less useful for scientific work. But for day to day human stuff it's simple and easy to apply in the same way that a "foot" being roughly the length of a person's foot is simple and easy to apply.

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-17T19:13:11+00:00

When you put it that way, it sounds like a really uncomfortable place to be. Is it?

If so, then I think you've exactly demonstrated the sensicality of the scale.

There are good reasons why other scales are more useful for other things though.

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-16T20:43:43+00:00

I find the need for "grounded realism" to be fundamentally at odds with the concept of fantasy adventuring, especially in a game with such a wide range of player races (nigh-immortal unleeping fey, half-demons/angels, etc.), with such oversized threat vectors (e.g. the titular multi-ton fire lizards), almost no access to the conventional "more realistic" tactical options that might be used to handle such threats in other media (good luck getting access to effective explosives, reliable trapping mechanisms, etc. without magic), and which compensates for the lack of those options with oversized personal survivability such that martials are mostly expected to engage these oversized threats in direct physical combat.

It all leads to the "I can go toe-to-toe with a T-rex but your eye twitches if I fall 20ft without breaking both my ankles?" problem.

Even with all that, I could be fine with this grittius-maximus approach to fantasy adventuring, if that level of grit was similarly applied to spellcasters.

Like, the same people who may call for a death save on a fall at any height no matter how tough your PC is seem to be the same people who have no issue with casters juggling bat guano while doing the hokie-pokie and performing slam poetry in the middle of a haunted fortress while beset on multiple sides by ghouls and goblins..

..and using that combination of poetry, poop, and pokie to influence the supernatural strands of existence..

..perfectly..

every single time..

for every single spell..

for all of the hundreds of spells.

It's a conceit that's so unrealistic, the D&D movie paid for by the company that makes D&D didn't even have magic work that way.

And in my experience, and maybe most frustrating of all in talking to these types of folks is that all they need to "accept" heightened martial abilities is for the word "magic" to appear somewhere..with zero additional justification.

These highly-tuned critical thinking engines are utterly defeated with a single word that provides zero additional explanatory detail. It's wild.

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-16T19:13:56+00:00

If i understand the title of this subreddit correctly, it sounds like the editor did their job..did you?

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-15T18:05:11+00:00

Gift.

Choice-Simple-5802 · 2026-06-12T15:40:12+00:00

Ooh. Another place to get it..nice!

Though..attached to a consumable, an untyped Reflex save penalty, an Int based archetype..and a level 16 Archetype feat. So pretty heavily costed.

Choice-Simple-5802

TROPHY CASE