Readying an action - clarification

[DarkEternal]

So, we got into a bit of an argument last session about readying an action. We always played that readying an action is a high stress option that carries consequences about it. Meaning, if you play a range rand you ready a standard attack the moment the door is opened, you shoot that arrow, you shoot it good, even if the person on the other side is not Gnur the cruel, but Timmy the orphan, because that's the consequence for the action. Our new player said that's not how it's done and that you can decide on wht to do with that action, meaning even cancelling it if the trigger is not to your liking.


Honestly, the way we played it makes more sense to me, but I can't really prove him that he's wrong, or that he's right since the rules about it are not exactly written down in stone to the point of there being no debate. Both the core rules and the rules compendium say that you "may" take an action and that you "can" take an action, but then, using an example, it says that you have to be careful whether or not you're gonna use a readied action because it carries consequences if you do.

In terms of spellcasting, we played that you have to say what spell you're gonna use and under what conditions. The moment those conditions are met, you let the spell fly. The case in question was, the guy said he was gonna use a fireball spell the moment that a swarm of wasps advances on him. I said alright. Enemy's turn comes up and the thing does advance in his general direction, but it advances to the guy other than him. The conditions were met. It went towards him, but not at him. So, should he lobbed of a fireball that would catch his party member as well because those are the conditions he named? He said he shouldn't and wouldn't and instead said if he must use a spell, then he'd use some cantrip or something. The way I see it, the caster, when he readies to cast a spell, already has his fingers in the component bag and is practically starting to weave his spell. Changing it or canceling it during such a high stress situation seems implausible.

Thoughts?

[AmberVael]

The rules really do point to using the action being your choice. It does say may, it doesn't hint anywhere else that this isn't the case as far as I can see- the only 'consequences' it mentions are its impact on your initiative, not the potential use of an action when you wouldn't want that action to happen.

Also by the rules, you can specify the conditions to where the action wouldn't cause a problem. There's no limitations on space. If you want to say "I shoot at the next enemy that comes through the door" its a perfectly legit readied action, and won't end with little Timmy playing the part of pincushion.

I think this leniency is a good thing, because otherwise it forces you into actions you don't want to take, and that's just not very fun for all kinds of reasons.

If you're happy with your current interpretation of readied actions, that's fine, but its not the rules, and I could very much understand someone not enjoying your take on it.

[Firest Kathon]

We play it the same way you do, when the trigger condition is reached the action is executed. We usually allow triggers that account for it, e.g. "When the door is opened by an enemy, I shoot at them". However, the rules (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Ready) say:

You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition.
So that means you do not have to take the action.

[Sliver]

Check the DMG page 25, that's basically the whole argument.

It says that the rule is that if you don't want to take the readied action, you can keep it readied. But, it also says that the DM is within his rights to change that, because combat is fast and confusing.

The DMG offers two alternative rulings for not taking readied actions when the trigger happens:

Lose the readied action to not perform it.

Make a Wisdom DC 15 check. Pass - Can keep the readied action. Fail - The readied action triggers.

[Ashtagon]

My understanding is that you choose a trigger ("the door opens and someone appears behind it" or "Gargamel the wizard starts to cast a spell"), which must be based off actions and events that you can perceive. You also choose your action ("throw my axe at them" or "cast a counterspell"). Once the trigger event has happened, however, you can review your current information ("that's not Timmy, that's the ogre!" or "hmm, the only counterspell I have for that spell is more valuable used in other ways"), and decide whether or not to follow through with your prepared action. You can't, however, decide to do a different action instead of your prepared action. Your choice is do nothing or do your prepared action.

Forcing a PC to follow through on a readied action he doesn't want to take strikes me as a fumble-grade mistake, rather than a failed ability check. If I were re-writing that rule, I'd go with DC 15 Wisdom check not to follow through. Success means you can keep the readied action ready, failure means you lose it, and a natural 1 means you do it anyway.

[Segev]

If you were aiming for center-of-mass on the expected Grod the Cruel, who is presumably some 6 feet tall, and it turns out to be little Timmy (roughly half that height), one could at the least argue that the shot flies over Timmy's head automatically.

Note that this is also house-rule territory, but since we're already there...

[DarkEternal]

If you were aiming for center-of-mass on the expected Grod the Cruel, who is presumably some 6 feet tall, and it turns out to be little Timmy (roughly half that height), one could at the least argue that the shot flies over Timmy's head automatically.

Note that this is also house-rule territory, but since we're already there...

Or you would explode Timmy's head, Scanners style. Poor Timmy.


I like the wisdom check idea. It makes it sort of dangerous on lower levels due to inexperience, and gets less dangerous to do the higher in level you are, while characters with good self control and common sense have a higher chance of passing the check. I don't know. I just think that if you ready an action and practically have no penalties for doing whatever you want with it loses a lot of the danger in the game itself. It's not a game breaking problem for me, but these things are what interest me in the game itself.

[Sliver]

Or you would explode Timmy's head, Scanners style. Poor Timmy.


I like the wisdom check idea. It makes it sort of dangerous on lower levels due to inexperience, and gets less dangerous to do the higher in level you are, while characters with good self control and common sense have a higher chance of passing the check. I don't know. I just think that if you ready an action and practically have no penalties for doing whatever you want with it loses a lot of the danger in the game itself. It's not a game breaking problem for me, but these things are what interest me in the game itself.

As long as you are aware that your player was right by RAW and that you have been houseruling it, and admit to him that you have been, I think you're fine. He might not like the houserule, but that's besides the point.

Though I agree that a DC 15 all-or-nothing check is a bit bad. I think have at least varying degrees of success. Pass - Can keep the readied action. Fail by 5 or less - Either take the action or lose it. Fail by more than 5 - Perform the action!

Or something like that. Similar to Swim or Climb failing at different levels.

[DarkEternal]

Except he was not right. Nor was he wrong. I'll admit I thought it was done the way I mentioned in the original post, but the DMG supports the claim that it's up for the DM to rule it any way he sees fit as long as it follows some of the lines of setting the triggers.

[AmberVael]

Except he was not right. Nor was he wrong. I'll admit I thought it was done the way I mentioned in the original post, but the DMG supports the claim that it's up for the DM to rule it any way he sees fit as long as it follows some of the lines of setting the triggers.

He was right the rules normally allow you to forego your readied action if you desire. Even the DMG calls that the standard rule. It does suggest some alternatives to make combat a little more fast and dangerous, but those are not the expected default.

It's fine if you want to use those alternate rules- that's not wrong either, and in short, it means your understanding of things is right in regards to your table. But it is perfectly reasonable for someone to not be expecting that take on things if it wasn't clarified earlier and for his default understanding of the rules to be right too- its just that you're not using those rules. In short, this isn't really a case of someone being right or wrong so much as it is a misunderstanding of a play style.

[DarkEternal]

He was right the rules normally allow you to forego your readied action if you desire. Even the DMG calls that the standard rule. It does suggest some alternatives to make combat a little more fast and dangerous, but those are not the expected default.

It's fine if you want to use those alternate rules- that's not wrong either, and in short, it means your understanding of things is right in regards to your table. But it is perfectly reasonable for someone to not be expecting that take on things if it wasn't clarified earlier and for his default understanding of the rules to be right too- its just that you're not using those rules. In short, this isn't really a case of someone being right or wrong so much as it is a misunderstanding of a play style.

I can live with that, yeah.

[Trasilor]

So, we got into a bit of an argument last session...

[snipped]

Thoughts?

I think you are in danger of creating "wish language" from 2nd edition. Wishes in 2nd edition were generally treated as cursed wishes - you get what you want, but not exactly how you wanted it. In other words, a great way for the DM to screw with players.

If you make the player use extremely precise language, you will end up with readied actions that read like legal contracts.

Unfortunately, your example is poor.

If the trigger was activated the second the swarm moved towards the caster (as your rule), his spell should have gone off. Not after it moved to engage his companion, but the instant it moved 5' closer to the caster. In fact, if the swarm made a lateral move that the caster construed as 'advancing' upon him, the spell trigger would have gone off.

However, you made the caster wait until after the swarm finished moving - in essence the caster deferred his action until after it moved. Which clearly means he has the option whether or not to execute his readied action.

On the other hand....

If the player announced his intentions ("cast fireball on the enemy as soon as it advances on me"), and the other party member ran towards the swarm, thus putting him/herself in the radius of the fireball, then we have a different situation. As soon as the swarm moved towards the caster (the caster doesn't actually know where the swarm is headed - only that it got closer to him), the spell should go off. You could look at as the caster was so focused on his target, he failed to see his companion move closer.

I had something like this actually happen in one of my games.

[Doctor Awkward]

I like the wisdom check idea. It makes it sort of dangerous on lower levels due to inexperience, and gets less dangerous to do the higher in level you are, while characters with good self control and common sense have a higher chance of passing the check.

Not true at all.
A 2nd level barbarian with an 8 Wisdom is going to have exactly the same chance of failing a DC 15 Wisdom check as a 20th level barbarian with the same 8 Wisdom. The roll is 1d20 + Wisdom modifier, and it doesn't care what level you are.

Now if you wanted to change things such that you also add something like half your hit dice to the check, then yes it becomes easier as you get higher in level.


I don't know. I just think that if you ready an action and practically have no penalties for doing whatever you want with it loses a lot of the danger in the game itself. It's not a game breaking problem for me, but these things are what interest me in the game itself.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.
The penalty for readying an action is that you effectively lose your standard action for the round if the trigger you specify doesn't happen.

If I'm playing a wizard and a group of enemies are at one end of the hall, I can ready a standard action to cast Glitterdust on them when they get within range. Now if instead of running up and trying to join the battle, those enemies pull out crossbows and start shooting at us, I just spent my round doing nothing except getting shot in the face.

In the example of your wizard throwing the fireball, the wasps advanced within range but go after his buddy instead, so he chooses not to cast his spell and keep his buddy safe (relatively). He just lost his initiative on the enemy, when he could have walked forward and cast a fireball on them before they got anywhere near his buddy.

Would walking forward have entailed it's own risks? Possibly, but that's sort of the point. Penalizing the readied action probably won't do much but make combat less tactically interesting for your players.