Readied Action Question

[rweird]

This is theoretical, it hasn't yet came up, but I believe that at some point it may, and would like to know what happens, and if there is a RAW way to solve this.


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.

- http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm

My question is: What happens when a two characters have readied actions that trigger each other. For example, character 1 and character 2 are standing next to each other, both have readied actions to attack the other if attacked, character 3 attacks character 1. Because they happen just before the action that triggers them, this means the readied action wouldn't have been used when the other is triggered, in turn triggering the other, which triggers the other… on and on and on… Is this how it actually would work? How would you resolve it.

A second question of the same stream of thought: Can immediate actions pre-empt actions like readied actions? If so, does that mean if a caster casts celerity in response to another celerity, the first caster could cast celerity in response to the second casters, as he didn't actually cast at the time the other caster did, and this is repeated ad infinitum?

[Erik Vale]

With the first one I would say that it causes a infinite loop, as both actions go off at the same time yet before the other.
Of course, this could be solved IRL by saying they both go off and take effect at the exact same time. [The simultaneous kill situation]

For the second one, you can't ready immediate actions [celerity], however they are interrupts that go first, so you could use a immediate action to go before a readied action, but you would have to use your immediate action after the readied action triggers otherwise the readied would go after the immidiate.

[rweird]

With the first one I would say that it causes a infinite loop, as both actions go off at the same time yet before the other.
Of course, this could be solved IRL by saying they both go off and take effect at the exact same time. [The simultaneous kill situation]

Though by RAW, they'd each keep pre-empting each other's?


For the second one, you can't ready immediate actions [celerity], however they are interrupts that go first, so you could use a immediate action to go before a readied action, but you would have to use your immediate action after the readied action triggers otherwise the readied would go after the immidiate.

I'm not talking about readied actions for this. I'm wondering if a similar situation to the readied action thing with immediate actions (one is triggered, the other triggers theirs, in response, the first re-triggers theirs before the first time it was triggered, on and on).

[Vhaidara]

With the first one I would say that it causes a infinite loop, as both actions go off at the same time yet before the other.
Of course, this could be solved IRL by saying they both go off and take effect at the exact same time. [The simultaneous kill situation]

For the second one, you can't ready immediate actions [celerity], however they are interrupts that go first, so you could use a immediate action to go before a readied action, but you would have to use your immediate action after the readied action triggers otherwise the readied would go after the immidiate.

Agreed on the first one.

And you only get one immediate action, so it goes (in an example):

Fighter 1 readies an action to attack Caster 2 if Caster 2 tries to cast a spell
Fighter 2 begins attacking Caster 1
Caster 1 begins casting Celerity
Caster 2 begins casting Celerity
Fighter 1 begins attacking Caster 2 in response to Caster 2 attempting to cast a spell
Fighter 1's attack resolves
Caster 2's Celerity resolves (or fizzles if hit and fails concentration)
Caster 2 takes action with Celerity (or not)
Caster 1's Celerity resolves
Caster 1 takes action with Celerity
Fighter 2's attack resolves (if Caster 1 is still a valid target)

[rweird]

Agreed on the first one.

And you only get one immediate action, so it goes (in an example):

Fighter 1 readies an action to attack Caster 2 if Caster 2 tries to cast a spell
Fighter 2 begins attacking Caster 1
Caster 1 begins casting Celerity
Caster 2 begins casting Celerity
Fighter 1 begins attacking Caster 2 in response to Caster 2 attempting to cast a spell
Fighter 1's attack resolves
Caster 2's Celerity resolves (or fizzles if hit and fails concentration)
Caster 2 takes action with Celerity (or not)
Caster 1's Celerity resolves
Caster 1 takes action with Celerity
Fighter 2's attack resolves (if Caster 1 is still a valid target)

That is how it would work, though with the exception of celerity, which you didn't use in the method I outlined for the loop. The casters and the fighters are two separate situations. That is a perfectly normal use of readied actions and stuff that doesn't address the question.

Situations as I outlined them:
Something happens to trigger casting celerity (say someone shooting an arrow at the king).
Caster 1: Celerity to cast stun ray on archer
Caster 2: Celerity to try to disrupt the stun ray (happens before casting of celerity I believe)
Caster 1: Celerity to disrupt disruption (as the stun ray hasn't been cast yet, or the celerity, as this takes place immediately before caster 1's attempt to cast stun ray)
Caster 2: Celerity to disrupt caster 1s action in the same way.
And so-on. Does this work? If not, why? You don't actually take multiple immediate actions, it just is you keep taking the same one earlier in response to someone else trying to block it.

The fighters would be attacking each other with their readied action, in response to an attack, not a casters.

[Vhaidara]

That is how it would work, though with the exception of celerity, which you didn't use in the method I outlined for the loop. The casters and the fighters are two separate situations. That is a perfectly normal use of readied actions and stuff that doesn't address the question.

Situations as I outlined them:
Something happens to trigger casting celerity (say someone shooting an arrow at the king).
Caster 1: Celerity to cast stun ray on archer
Caster 2: Celerity to try to disrupt the stun ray (happens before casting of celerity I believe)
Caster 1: Celerity to disrupt disruption (as the stun ray hasn't been cast yet, or the celerity, as this takes place immediately before caster 1's attempt to cast stun ray)
Caster 2: Celerity to disrupt caster 1s action in the same way.
And so-on. Does this work? If not, why? You don't actually take multiple immediate actions, it just is you keep taking the same one earlier in response to someone else trying to block it.

The fighters would be attacking each other with their readied action, in response to an attack, not a casters.

And the chain ends where I crossed out. The casting of Celerity (the beginning of it) is the immediate action. You only get 1 immediate action per turn.

I added the fighters in for a point of reference.

[OldTrees1]

My question is: What happens when a two characters have readied actions that trigger each other. For example, character 1 and character 2 are standing next to each other, both have readied actions to attack the other if attacked, character 3 attacks character 1. Because they happen just before the action that triggers them, this means the readied action wouldn't have been used when the other is triggered, in turn triggering the other, which triggers the other… on and on and on… Is this how it actually would work? How would you resolve it.

This is a simple stack

Ftr 1 has a readied action to attack Ftr 2 if Ftr 1 is attacked.
Ftr 2 has a readied action to attack Ftr 1 if Ftr 2 is attacked.

Ftr 3 begins attacking Ftr 1
Ftr 1 begins attacking Ftr 2
Ftr 2 begins attacking Ftr 1
Ftr 2 finishes attacking Ftr 1
Ftr 1 finishes attacking Ftr 2
Ftr 3 finishes attacking Ftr 1

[Invader]

There wouldn't be any loop at all in the first scenario.

Fighter 1 gets attacked by fighter 3 triggering his readied action to attack fighter 2 which triggers fighter 2's ready action so the order of attacks go

Fighter 2 hits fighter 1
Fighter 1 hits fighter 2
Fighter 3 hits fighter 1

End of round

[Rebel7284]

Either resolve in the order they were originally readied or have them happen at the same time. I would probably lean toward the same time.

[Yanisa]

This is a simple stack

Ftr 1 has a readied action to attack Ftr 2 if Ftr 1 is attacked.
Ftr 2 has a readied action to attack Ftr 1 if Ftr 2 is attacked.

Ftr 3 begins attacking Ftr 1
Ftr 1 begins attacking Ftr 2
Ftr 2 begins attacking Ftr 1
Ftr 2 finishes attacking Ftr 1
Ftr 1 finishes attacking Ftr 2
Ftr 3 finishes attacking Ftr 1

This, for the simple reason that you only have one readied action and it can only happen once, although you can choose when you trigger it it will only trigger once. DnD initiative is quite easy when you put it on paper, although the system can be abused to confuse the hell out of anyone during the game. :smalltongue:

[rweird]

I understand that is a logical way to resolve it. Does anyone have rules support for the fact that although the readied action hasn't yet went off when a second readied action is triggered, the first can't trigger again?

Keledrath: So immediate actions take place between the start and the end of the action? Not just before the triggering one like readied actions?

[Yanisa]

I understand that is a logical way to resolve it. Does anyone have rules support for the fact that although the readied action hasn't yet went off when a second readied action is triggered, the first can't trigger again?

Because a readied action, in and it of itself is an standard action and you can only have one of those in each round, barring exceptions.

See: Special Initiative Actions -> Ready (specialInitiativeActions)


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).

So that means you can only have one readied action, and you can only do it once per round. Like a normal standard action.

[rweird]

I understand that. It goes on to say
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.

Because of this, the readied action would still be readied when the second occurs, allowing the first person to take their readied action before the second readied action. I am not arguing that they can make infinite attacks in this manner, I'm just wondering if I'm correct that they will be able to each interrupt the other's readied action with there own an infinite number of times before it is resolved.

[Vhaidara]

Keledrath: So immediate actions take place between the start and the end of the action? Not just before the triggering one like readied actions?

An immediate action is an action that you take not during your turn. It also counts as your swift action for your next turn, limiting you to 1 immediate action per turn.

So Caster 1 spent their immediate action to cast Celerity in response to being attacked by Fighter 2.
Then Caster 2 spends their immediate action during Caster 1's immediate action to cast Celerity.
Caster 2 cannot cast Celerity in response because this is occurring within Caster 1's immediate action, not before.

[Yanisa]

I understand that. It goes on to say

Because of this, the readied action would still be readied when the second occurs, allowing the first person to take their readied action before the second readied action. I am not arguing that they can make infinite attacks in this manner, I'm just wondering if I'm correct that they will be able to each interrupt the other's readied action with there own an infinite number of times before it is resolved.

Now you are digging way too deep in it, should I start throwing books? :smalltongue:

If the first readied action does not happen, the second readied action can not happen, because there is no condition to trigger it.

So in reverse, when that second readied action is triggered, that does mean the first readied action is also triggered and thus is happening.

You can also see it as the "no take back rule" DnD often implies. Once you start doing an action, aka you roll a die for an attack, you cannot suddenly take that action back (unless the DM is nice) and you are stuck doing that action.

For readied action this means you have chosen to do that readied action, you cannot stop doing that readied action, even if someone else interrupts you, whether that be another readied action or an immediate action.

[Glimbur]

I understand that. It goes on to say

Because of this, the readied action would still be readied when the second occurs, allowing the first person to take their readied action before the second readied action. I am not arguing that they can make infinite attacks in this manner, I'm just wondering if I'm correct that they will be able to each interrupt the other's readied action with there own an infinite number of times before it is resolved.

Let's take a different example. There is a doorway which the prince is about to come through. Sadly for him there is an assassin and a kidnapper (with an accomplice) waiting for him. We are in combat rounds because the two villains were fighting some guards outside; the prince is coming out to see what is happening.

Assassin readies an action to shoot the prince when he walks through the door.

Kidnapper readies an action to cast Baleful Transposition on the prince and the kidnapper's accomplice, moving him. (it's a spell. Don't sweat the details.)

Prince walks through the door. What happens next? (tl;dr what if two different actions are readied for the same stimulus but they interfere with each other)

I had thought that there would be a contest of initiative modifiers or they re-roll initiative, but I can't see anything like that in the SRD. Maybe the Rules Compendium has the answer.

[georgie_leech]

This is one of those places where they really should have clarified their language. If the use of "occur" in the text is referring to the entirety of the action, you get weird loops like this. On the other hand, if it's instead referring to when the action resolves, then you can have Fighter 1's Readied Action begin, trigger Fighter 2's, resolve 2's, then resolve 1's, and everything works fine.

[Yanisa]

tl;dr what if two different actions are readied for the same stimulus but they interfere with each other

I had thought that there would be a contest of initiative modifiers or they re-roll initiative, but I can't see anything like that in the SRD. Maybe the Rules Compendium has the answer.

Nope, Rules Compendium just echo the SRD and don't seem to have different wording. (If they do, it's minor at best)

In this case there is no RAW answer, but the most logical is to resolve the readied action by initiative. (Warning: Opinion!)

So if the Assassin has the higher initiative, he shoots the prince first, then the spell happens, if there still is a alive prince to teleport.
If the Kidnapper has higher initiative, he casts the spell and ends up being the one shot.

The latter would make a nice headline. "Prince saved from Kidnapping by Enemy Assassin."


This is one of those places where they really should have clarified their language. If the use of "occur" in the text is referring to the entirety of the action, you get weird loops like this. On the other hand, if it's instead referring to when the action resolves, then you can have Fighter 1's Readied Action begin, trigger Fighter 2's, resolve 2's, then resolve 1's, and everything works fine.

It might be my brain and my minor experience with programming, but it seems clear to me that readies actions happen during another action. It is a sort of nested clause.

So while the fighter is swinging his sword, the readied action is triggered and resolved.
If someone else interrupts that, his action happens between the start and end of the first readied action.

They could have gone in detail with it (tackling topics as nested readied actions and dual readied actions), or made a more streamlined approach, but then again... I wonder how much of this happens in gameplay, and how easy it is to fix by slapping the players for having awfully weird specific readied actions. (I hit you if anyone hits me... well I hit you back if anyone else hits me!???)

[The Prince of Cats]

From my perspective, I have to agree with the nested-clause view for the RAW; the character with the readied action is poised to react to a specific action and so can react to it as soon as their target begins to move.

The first time a triggering action is declared, the action starts; to use the OP's example:


Character 1 reacts to character 3's attack, pre-empting it
Character 2 reacts to character 1's attack, pre-empting it
Character 1 cannot react to character 2's attack, because they are already committed to attacking character 3
Character 2 resolves their attack against 1
Character 1, if able, resolves their attack against 3
Character 3, if able, resolves their attack against 1
Character 1 seriously considers more explicit language next time


For the fencers out there, consider a stop-thrust as a readied action; the action puts your blade offline, leaving you open until you complete the attack and then you can parry. In a 3-way melee, or even against rapiers florentine / main-gauche, that opening could be used by a prepared opponent to strike you first even without right of way concerns.

In reality, after one character readies an action to attack another, responding with 'well, I am readying an action to attack her / him if she attacks me' is usually a little stupid. A better response would have been to attack player 3 and let the reactive character lose a turn waiting for an action that never comes. The only exception is if players 2 and 3 are on the same side and have planned to use readied actions in hopes that player 1 will be disabled by one or other of their attacks...

I suppose there is room for a house rule saying that readied actions go in initiative order, meaning that whoever declares a readied action goes as soon as they are triggered even if someone else has readied an action later.

[rweird]

Yanisa: Does this mean you can't disrupt other readied actions with readied actions. If I ready an action to cast Power Word: Stun when another caster casts a spell, I would stun them, and prevent them from casting the spell, meaning I wouldn't have cast Power Word: Stun in the first place?

Nesting: Yes, that certainly makes more sense, though I think the rules say it happens before the triggering action.

For a scenario where this would happen: I thought of negotiations. There was combat, it stopped for people to talk, but the talk isn't going well. The two sides watch each other, and pick targets they can attack (in melee range) to attack if someone starts hostilities. The other person sees the first guy looking at him and tense, and tenses up, ready for a counter-attack. Negotiations go south and some trigger-happy dude attacks, which triggers the first readied action.

[OldTrees1]

I understand that. It goes on to say

Because of this, the readied action would still be readied when the second occurs, allowing the first person to take their readied action before the second readied action.

No. In order to trigger the 2nd readied action, the 1st readied action would need to be triggered and thus no longer is Ftr 1 readying an action. Ftr 1's readied action is in progress but unresolved at the time Ftr 2's readied action is triggered and interrupts Ftr 1's action from resolving.


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.

So Ftr 1 must be in progress (not readied) in order to trigger Ftr 2 to interrupt them.

[Yanisa]

Yanisa: Does this mean you can't disrupt other readied actions with readied actions. If I ready an action to cast Power Word: Stun when another caster casts a spell, I would stun them, and prevent them from casting the spell, meaning I wouldn't have cast Power Word: Stun in the first place?

Nesting: Yes, that certainly makes more sense, though I think the rules say it happens before the triggering action.

You can interrupt readied actions who are in progress, if you all see it as nested actions.


5For a scenario where this would happen: I thought of negotiations. There was combat, it stopped for people to talk, but the talk isn't going well. The two sides watch each other, and pick targets they can attack (in melee range) to attack if someone starts hostilities. The other person sees the first guy looking at him and tense, and tenses up, ready for a counter-attack. Negotiations go south and some trigger-happy dude attacks, which triggers the first readied action.

Let's try an example where readies actions end up wasted due other readied actions. With a bit of fluff while we are at it.

It is the scenario as described above. During the negotiations The Fighter of one group and the Paladin of the other group face off, ready for combat but both are honorable enough to not deal the first strike. They both ready their actions for as soon as anyone starts hostilities they attack. the both suspect the other might do it, but don't want exclude other members of the other group.
The Rogue of group A and friends of the Fighter, doesn't care about honor and sees the negations are failing. He figures the Paladin is the biggest treat and makes his move.

The Paladin wins initiative, the Rogue roles lowest. (The rest of the parties gets ignored)

Paladin: Ready action to strike the Fighter when the Paladin himself gets attacked.
Fighter: Ready action to strike the Paladin when the Fighter himself gets attacked, and then take a five foot step away from the Paladin.
Rogue: Walks in position and starts to Flank Sneak Attacks the Paladin
>>>The Paladins readied action gets triggered before the Rogues gets a chance to roll attack.
>>>The Paladin starts to attack the Fighter
>>>>>>The Fighters readied action gets triggered before the Paladin gets a chance to roll attack.
>>>>>>>>>No one else interrupts the flow.
>>>>>>The Fighter resolves his attack, rolls a die, deals damage. Then as part of that readied action he steps 5 foot away from the Paladin.
>>>The Paladin can no longer complete his attack, and waste his readied action. (I.E. he hits the air in front of him)
The Rogue can no longer flank the paladin, but can still him attack. The rogue rolls a normal attack against the Paladin and deals normal damage.

In a different scenario the Fighter can also choose to not take his readied action, so the rogue can flank and deal sneak damage. Then the paladin does hit the Fighter and the Fighter can do nothing about it.

I hope that is more clear to you then me just saying stuff, it seems we are on different thinking wavelengths.
Like I said before I have dealt with some programming so I see logical flows in these things where others might not? It basically is a bunch of If statements setting off other If statements. :smalltongue:

[rweird]

That is clear and makes logical sense. The problem is, readied actions aren't nested. The SRD explicitly states that readied actions take place before the triggering action occurs. It'd be before the attack is made, with a readied action, the other goes off, an immediate action chain would probably nest like that though.

For your example, the paladin also could 5 ft step with his readied action, and hit the fighter anyways.

[Vhaidara]

However, the readied action cannot trigger until its condition is met. Meaning that

Fighter 1 readies to attack Fighter 2 if Fighter 1 is attacked
Fighter 2 readies to attack Fighter 1 if Fighter 2 is attacked
Fighter 3 begins attack on Fighter 2
This triggers Fighter 2's readied action
Fighter 2 begins to attack Fighter 1
This triggers Fighter 1's readied action
Fighter 1 begins to attack Fighter 2
Fighter 1's attack resolves, because Fighter 2's readied action was spent in the action that triggered Fighter 1's attack
Fighter 2's attack resolves
Fighter 3's attack resolves.


EDIT: Also, you can't ready to attack and 5-ft step. That would be a standard and a free action, and you can only ready one.

[Yanisa]

That is clear and makes logical sense. The problem is, readied actions aren't nested. The SRD explicitly states that readied actions take place before the triggering action occurs. It'd be before the attack is made, with a readied action, the other goes off, an immediate action chain would probably nest like that though.

That is why I specified when attacks rolls were made, the attacks and their rolls didn't occur until after the readied action that interrupted the attack. The entire readied action, both of them, got resolved before the event that triggered the readied action.


For your example, the paladin also could 5 ft step with his readied action, and hit the fighter anyways.

I believed you need to state both the action and condition, in my mind the 5 ft step is part of the action and needs to be stated before...

On second reading it might not be, the 5-footstep clause is a separate paragraph... Let's just assume the Paladin is dumb. :smalltongue:

Edit

EDIT: Also, you can't ready to attack and 5-ft step. That would be a standard and a free action, and you can only ready one.

Good point, it seems I was completely wrong in that regard. You can make a 5 foot step as part of a readied action, but you cannot ready that five foot step (Weird?). So even if you don't say so when readying your action, you got that five foot step (Bonus), unless you moved in that round of course.

I should have gone for the power word stun example. :smalltongue:

[OldTrees1]

All interrupts act like a stack. Last in, first out.

Each readied action begins, when triggered, by being put on the stack. If nothing interrupts the action, then the action finishes by resolving and is removed from the stack. If another action interrupts the first action, that new action is put on the stack. The first action is resolved when it is once again at the top of the stack (no more interruptions).

[rweird]

That is why I specified when attacks rolls were made, the attacks and their rolls didn't occur until after the readied action that interrupted the attack. The entire readied action, both of them, got resolved before the event that triggered the readied action.

Why is there a space between the action and the result?

Basically, I am wondering if this is a RAW reading, or common-sense reading. Now I am more interested in figuring out what RAW is, though I agree with the nesting thing being common sense.

[Yanisa]

Why is there a space between the action and the result?

Basically, I am wondering if this is a RAW reading, or common-sense reading. Now I am more interested in figuring out what RAW is, though I agree with the nesting thing being common sense.

It's a way of trying to translate RAW to common sense, or at least a way for me to cope with the rules that sound logical to me.

It comes back to my early point. When a Readied Action is happening, the conditions of that readied rations must also have happened. For example if you say "I strike that dude when he is in range" and he moves past you, you interrupts his movement, but he already moved so that the readied action can happen.

It gets more iffy with attacks though....

If you ready an action to attack someone that attacks you.. the only way your readied action can happen is if you are being attacked. But by RAW the whole readied action happens before the event that triggers it. The only way that could make sense is when you attack between the attack and the attack roll. :smallconfused:




And in all fairness, the more I post here, the more I realize its definitely not clear in RAW (even though I thought it was), but I still feel "my way" is a "logical" way of handling it, but we are drifting away from RAW and more to RAI.

[OldTrees1]

Why is there a space between the action and the result?

Basically, I am wondering if this is a RAW reading, or common-sense reading. Now I am more interested in figuring out what RAW is, though I agree with the nesting thing being common sense.

No.
Actions are composed of:
Declaration, rolls and resolution.
For an action to trigger a readied action, the triggering action must have been declared. At that point the readied action interrupts the triggering action.

Declare triggering action (triggers readied action)
Declare readied action
Roll for readied action
Resolve readied action
Roll for triggering action
Resolve triggering action

[rweird]

It's a way of trying to translate RAW to common sense, or at least a way for me to cope with the rules that sound logical to me.

It comes back to my early point. When a Readied Action is happening, the conditions of that readied rations must also have happened. For example if you say "I strike that dude when he is in range" and he moves past you, you interrupts his movement, but he already moved so that the readied action can happen.

It gets more iffy with attacks though....

If you ready an action to attack someone that attacks you.. the only way your readied action can happen is if you are being attacked. But by RAW the whole readied action happens before the event that triggers it. The only way that could make sense is when you attack between the attack and the attack roll. :smallconfused:

And in all fairness, the more I post here, the more I realize its definitely not clear in RAW (even though I thought it was), but I still feel "my way" is a "logical" way of handling it, but we are drifting away from RAW and more to RAI.

Yeah, I agree your interpretation is logical, and close to the one I'd use. By RAW, a bunch of things you should be able to ready an action to do won't work apparently.

OldTrees1: Where does RAW breakdown actions into those three categories?

[OldTrees1]

Yeah, I agree your interpretation is logical, and close to the one I'd use. By RAW, a bunch of things you should be able to ready an action to do won't work apparently.

OldTrees1: Where does RAW breakdown actions into those three categories?
There is a RAW breakdown between declaration and resolution in the Readying an Action paragraph. They use different words but let me highlight it for you.


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.
You are allowed to decline taking a readied action. If you decide to take the readied action, you must tell your DM that your are taking your readied action. This is the declaration of action.


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.
Here we see that the readied action takes place after the declaration of the triggering action but before the action's resolution is allowed to continue.


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.
The rest of the quote was merely included for completeness