Readied actions and 5ft steps

[Boci]

In one on one combat, if the person with higher initiative readied an action to attack and then when the opponent attacks they get to do so first with a 5ft step, can their opponent take a 5ft step after them, or do they need to finish their attack first?

For example, Spike and Eve are about to fight, and Eve wins initiative with 17 to spike's 12. At initiative step 17, Eve readies an action to attack when Spike attacks her. At initiative step 12, Spike then attacks Eve, triggering her readied action. She get's to attack first and then 5ft steps away, then her initiative becomes 12.1 and she can rinse and repeat. Can Spike take a 5 step after her and then attack, or is he forced to make the attack from where he stands, thus requiring an additional 5ft of reach if he is to hit Eve?

[Stegyre]

I think, if Spike still has move remaining, he continues to move, covers the 5' distance, and makes his attack, if he still wants to.

It is not (technically) a 5' step, even though the distance moved is 5'.

Further, Spike could choose to do something else with his standard action instead of attack: Eve's readied action (by RAW) occurs before his attack, and nothing in the rules requires Spike to follow through with it, especially not if the circumstances have changed.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Readied actions resolve before the triggering action does AND interrupt them. There's no take-backsies when your chosen action backfires on you.

In your example, I assume they did not start the fight adjacent and Spike had to move first. Given that... the move action and standard to attack are separate actions. He cannot take his attack action until he has ended his move action. If he wants to move before and after attacking, that's what spring attack and the like are for.
So yes. Spike moves to Eve, then attacks. Eve takes her readied attack then side-steps away in the middle of Spike's attack, avoiding it and ruining his action. Her initiative is then set to just before Spike's, so in a duel, it's immediately her turn again.

She could try to repeat her tactic ad nauseum, but that's a dumb plan. If she doesn't attack, Spike will be unlikely to fall for this again and simply pull a ranged weapon on Eve, and then she's the one who ended up wasting her turn, on a readied action trigger that never happened. It's much smarter for her to follow up on her first strike by stepping back into melee reach and full attacking Spike, possibly killing him before he can even retaliate.

Now, if Spike had used a charge, it's a bit murkier, since that's a single full round action that includes the movement and the attack. If he charged, Eve would be best served literally stepping to the side (rather than back), so he can't simply continue in a straight line to reach her. He may still have the option to continue his straight line movement to at least not be in range for a full attack, I don't know. I don't think so, but...maybe.

As for the "fairness" of this tactic... It depends on winning initiative and Eve gambling her turn on hoping Spike would try to melee her, and not just shoot her out of suspicion when he sees her oddly stand in place on her turn. Winning initiative is a huge benefit, and trust me...a caster can do FAR FAR *FAR* more nasty things when he has the first turn, than this little trick.

[Boci]

Readied actions resolve before the triggering action does AND interrupt them. There's no take-backsies when your chosen action backfires on you.

In your example, I assume they did not start the fight adjacent and Spike had to move first.

Yeah. So if they were adjacent Spike could just follow Eve and attack her?


As for the "fairness" of this tactic... It depends on winning initiative and Eve gambling her turn on hoping Spike would try to melee her, and not just shoot her out of suspicion when he sees her oddly stand in place on her turn. Winning initiative is a huge benefit, and trust me...a caster can do FAR FAR *FAR* more nasty things when he has the first turn, than this little trick.

Oh I understand this is hardly game breaking. In addition to what you said, it also assumes just 2 people fighting, which is a non-standard encounter set up.

[Curmudgeon]

In one on one combat, if the person with higher initiative readied an action to attack and then when the opponent attacks they get to do so first with a 5ft step, can their opponent take a 5ft step after them, or do they need to finish their attack first?
There's no attack to finish because the readied action made that not happen. After the readied action has ended we're back to the original character's turn, at the action before the intended attack which didn't happen. If that action was a normal move then they can continue to move until they've used up their speed.

Remember, D&D doesn't use declared actions except in special cases (like the Stunning Fist (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#stunningFist) feat). An intent to attack is enough to trigger a readied action, but it's not binding afterward.

[StreamOfTheSky]

There's no attack to finish because the readied action made that not happen. After the readied action has ended we're back to the original character's turn, at the action before the intended attack which didn't happen. If that action was a normal move then they can continue to move until they've used up their speed.

Remember, D&D doesn't use declared actions except in special cases (like the Stunning Fist (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#stunningFist) feat). An intent to attack is enough to trigger a readied action, but it's not binding afterward.

I completely disagree. And thankfully, the rules do as well (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm#ready).


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.

Eve interrupts the action Spike is using. He has already committed to that action and is in the middle of it when the readied action occurs. He does not get that action back.

[Curmudgeon]

Eve interrupts the action Spike is using. He has already committed to that action and is in the middle of it when the readied action occurs. He does not get that action back.
No, Eve preempts the action Spike was intending to use. After that, "he continues his actions once you complete your readied action" imposes no requirement for Spike to take the same actions he originally planned. There is no "committed to" in the rules you quoted.

[Yahzi]

I can't tell which of you is right, but I hope it's not Stream. If winning initiative means you can never be engaged in melee, that strikes me as... not helpful.

One of my house rules is that everyone gets the Step Up feat, so at my table Spike could just take his 5' step to follow her and then attack. Yes this disadvantages spell casters, but I'm really OK with that.

Also, in a 1 on 1 duel, I am pretty sure I would require both sides to roll initiative every round.

[xyianth]

Curmudgeon is correct in this case. Readied and immediate actions preempt whatever action triggered them. Outside of a few specific examples, D&D does not use declared actions: you are not committed to an action until it is actually taken.

[dascarletm]

Suppose instead character A uses his/her move action to move up to character B. Character B has readied to attack and 5ft. step when attacked. Character A ends his/her movement and uses a standard action to attack/initiate a maneuver/whatever. Would that change things?

[xyianth]

Suppose instead character A uses his/her move action to move up to character B. Character B has readied to attack and 5ft. step when attacked. Character A ends his/her movement and uses a standard action to attack/initiate a maneuver/whatever. Would that change things?

If the readied attack was triggered by the attack, it preempts the attack. After Charcter A attacks and steps away, Character B has not used their standard action yet. They can therefore continue to move (if movement is left) or take any other standard action available to them.

[Curmudgeon]

Outside of a few specific examples, D&D does not use declared actions: you are not committed to an action until it is actually taken.
The D&D rules are even less restrictive than that: you are not committed to an action until it is unambiguously taken.

Let's say you've got a high Tumble modifier and you Tumble at full speed always when you move; you never provoke AoOs from unseen opponents that way, thus it's a good practice. You move 5' to an enemy and swing at them in melee; you hit and deal damage. Your movement and attack are unambiguous, but the D&D actions are not. Your actions could be any of the following:

a 5' step and the first swing of a full attack
a 5' move action and a standard action attack
the first 5' of a split move action and a Spring Attack

(The second option is there because sometimes you need that move action. For example, you can draw a weapon as part of a regular move, but not as part of a 5' step.)
Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack

After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out. If you’ve already taken a 5-foot step, you can’t use your move action to move any distance, but you could still use a different kind of move action.
The above is a natural consequence of there being no requirement to declare actions ahead of time. Your character's choices don't map to specific D&D actions until something forces that choice. Taking a second swing means you're making a full attack. Moving after the attack could mean you're using Spring Attack — but maybe not, if you've also got Travel Devotion. :smallsmile:

[StreamOfTheSky]

No, Eve preempts the action Spike was intending to use. After that, "he continues his actions once you complete your readied action" imposes no requirement for Spike to take the same actions he originally planned. There is no "committed to" in the rules you quoted.

We can do this all day, back and forth. Eve interrupts Spike's action. It says so right in the text I quoted. It pre-empts (or more accurately, gains priority in resolution over Spike's action) AND interrupts.


I can't tell which of you is right, but I hope it's not Stream. If winning initiative means you can never be engaged in melee, that strikes me as... not helpful.

One of my house rules is that everyone gets the Step Up feat, so at my table Spike could just take his 5' step to follow her and then attack. Yes this disadvantages spell casters, but I'm really OK with that.

Also, in a 1 on 1 duel, I am pretty sure I would require both sides to roll initiative every round.

That's pretty incredible hyperbole. You "can never be engaged in melee" if...
1) You only fight in duels, unlike almost all combat in D&D tends to be
2) You win initiative
3) The foe, upon seeing you neither move nor act despite having your turn first, decides to go after you in melee, instead of throwing a club at you, drinking a bull's strength potion, or literally ANYTHING ELSE.
4) After falling for it once, proceeds to keep falling for it, round after round after round.

Do people really just hate that the readied action has actual clever uses? It seems that way.... Why do you have such a problem with the person who wins initiative getting an advantage? And Eve's still risking wasting her advantage if Spike doesn't play ball. Any deviation from the above, and Eve loses out, instead of striking or buffing first, she just threw her whole turn away.

As for Step Up, that's a terrible houserule. It's broken enough in PF where anyone with a pulse can take it, but to actually give it for free....just, wow... It does nothing to affect casters; defensive casting DCs are easy and exist. It screws over reach weapon users and archers very badly, on the other hand. At least 3E has Arrow Mind for the archers. The guy with a polearm is completely screwed with no recourse other than ditching his favored weapon. And you worry about readied actions obsoleting something...


Curmudgeon is correct in this case. Readied and immediate actions preempt whatever action triggered them. Outside of a few specific examples, D&D does not use declared actions: you are not committed to an action until it is actually taken.

Right. That's why if a wizard begins to cast a precious high level spell and thus trigger a hidden rogue's readied action to shoot him if he casts a spell, takes the damage, and realizes the concentration DC would be impossible to beat, he can change his mind and do something else instead. :smalleek:
That's not how it works...

[Curmudgeon]

We can do this all day, back and forth. Eve interrupts Spike's action. It says so right in the text I quoted. It pre-empts (or more accurately, gains priority in resolution over Spike's action) AND interrupts.
No, it interrupts the character, not that character's individual 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.

Right. That's why if a wizard begins to cast a precious high level spell and thus trigger a hidden rogue's readied action to shoot him if he casts a spell, takes the damage, and realizes the concentration DC would be impossible to beat, he can change his mind and do something else instead. :smalleek:
That's not how it works...
That's not how it works because there are special rules whereby you can interrupt spellcasting, not just the spellcaster. That capability to interrupt a spell being cast doesn't carry over to other actions.

[StreamOfTheSky]

No, it interrupts the character, not that character's individual action.

What are you interrupting? How did you trigger a readied action for a trigger that is never even attempted in the first place because the foe changes his mind?


That's not how it works because there are special rules whereby you can interrupt spellcasting, not just the spellcaster. That capability to interrupt a spell being cast doesn't carry over to other actions.

There's rules for provoking an AoO for casting, and using defensive casting to avoid it. There are rules for if you take damage while casting, to maintain concentration on it. What does any of that have to do with taking damage and deciding you don't want to cast the spell after all?

Spike was going to use an attack action to attack Eve, but with her readied action making that pointless, he decides to use his action for something else.
The wizard was going to use his standard action to cast a spell, but the rogue's readied action made that pointless, so he decides to use his action for something else.

[Curmudgeon]

What are you interrupting?
The other character's turn (though not any individual action in that turn).

How did you trigger a readied action for a trigger that is never even attempted in the first place because the foe changes his mind?
As I see it, you stop them from proceeding with their intended action after they've barely begun it (and thus before they've spent their action on it) but as soon as you can recognize the intent. You would need to ask the WotC authors for the specific details.

[Boci]

That's not how it works because there are special rules whereby you can interrupt spellcasting, not just the spellcaster. That capability to interrupt a spell being cast doesn't carry over to other actions.

Are there? Isn't it just that "if you take damage whilst casting a spell you must make a concentration check"? What is there to imply that this is the only time the caster is committed to the action? You clearly lose the spell if you fail the check as the rules say so, but by your interpretation, does the spell caster still have an action?

[Curmudgeon]

Are there? Isn't it just that "if you take damage whilst casting a spell you must make a concentration check"? What is there to imply that this is the only time the caster is committed to the action? You clearly lose the spell if you fail the check as the rules say so, but by your interpretation, does the spell caster still have an action?

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).
The bolded sentence expresses the special rule allowing casting to be interrupted. Were it not for this special rule, using Ready to damage the spellcaster would preempt the casting of any spell taking a full-round action or less, allowing the caster to take whatever action they wanted because the casting was preempted rather than interrupted. Normally an interruption strikes before (preempts) the other character's action.

[Sacrieur]

Readied actions are the best ever.

I limit them to what my players perceive. For instance, "If the evil wizard casts time stop." isn't a valid condition unless your character succeeds on a spellcraft check.

Also, anytime your movement would be interrupted by a readied action, you're permitted to complete the movement.

[Twurps]

I guess I have to side with Curmudgeon (mostly).

cosider this situation:
If you're playing an archer, there a multiple targets in range, and you have multiple attacks. Do you have to declare who you will target beforehand? At our table, we get to switch to target nr2 once target nr1 has dropped dead. As far as I know, that's not a house rule. This means you get to fill out the details of what actions you take in a round during the round, and in reaction to the world around you. (Even if dropping dead isn't really an action at all, never mind a readied action)
Now that i think of it: being able to react to someone dying is a pretty much required for things like cleave.
In OP's example, this means Spike gets to change his mind on how he finishes his round.

I'll go even further, and state that Spike is even able to alter his previous actions. For example: If spike was 5ft away from Eve. He might very well have intended to 5ft-step up to Eve, and then full attack. After his 5ft, and Eve's subsequent moving. He could alter his 5ft step into a 10ft movement (of which the fist 5ft are obviously already spent), and then make a standard action attack.

I don't feel this hampers the sweetness that is a well executed readied action in any way. Eve still got to prevent a full attack against her, whilst making one of her own.

As for how a readied action can be triggered by an event that never happened:
I think it's very plausable Eve would see that the attack is inevitable, and therefore execute her readied action before it happens.
I don't think it's very plausable for Spike to take a 5ft step, take damage from a full attacking Eve who then steps away, and still make a full attack, easily containing up to 8 well executed strikes, in thin air!.
(This last point is of course not very RAW, we've pretty much covered RAW, but I feel RAW that's impossible/highly implausible to play out isn't very useful)

[StreamOfTheSky]

The other character's turn (though not any individual action in that turn).

As I see it, you stop them from proceeding with their intended action after they've barely begun it (and thus before they've spent their action on it) but as soon as you can recognize the intent. You would need to ask the WotC authors for the specific details.

When during their turn? What are you interrupting? Why can't you choose when to interrupt? The whole point of a readied action in most uses for me is to interrupt a specific action.


The bolded sentence expresses the special rule allowing casting to be interrupted. Were it not for this special rule, using Ready to damage the spellcaster would preempt the casting of any spell taking a full-round action or less, allowing the caster to take whatever action they wanted because the casting was preempted rather than interrupted. Normally an interruption strikes before (preempts) the other character's action.

You're claiming an example/clarification (that readied actions interrupt other actions, my assertion) as a "special rule" (an exception to your assertion) with no proof it is the latter rather than the former.
If readied actions do occur *before* the triggering action, your quote still doesn't prove that a caster MUST proceed with his intended action of casting the spell. If he does, he clearly must make a concentration check or he will lose the spell.
But I see nothing in there overriding the supposed "rule" you claim for how readied actions work that allows the person attacked to change his mind and use his action for something else.


cosider this situation:
If you're playing an archer, there a multiple targets in range, and you have multiple attacks. Do you have to declare who you will target beforehand? At our table, we get to switch to target nr2 once target nr1 has dropped dead. As far as I know, that's not a house rule. This means you get to fill out the details of what actions you take in a round during the round, and in reaction to the world around you. (Even if dropping dead isn't really an action at all, never mind a readied action)
Now that i think of it: being able to react to someone dying is a pretty much required for things like cleave.
In OP's example, this means Spike gets to change his mind on how he finishes his round.

I think you're mixing two different things here. On a full attack, you can choose the target of each attack after seeing how the previous attack resolved (so that you can switch to a new target if the previous one is felled by your prior attack, for example). That's not related to readied actions, really. If your archer shot at someone who had readied to dive behind a wall if shot at, your shot would still miss him. But you would not in any way be required to target him (depending on the wall/terrain, he might not even be target-able anymore, anyway) with your following attacks in your full attack.


I'll go even further, and state that Spike is even able to alter his previous actions. For example: If spike was 5ft away from Eve. He might very well have intended to 5ft-step up to Eve, and then full attack. After his 5ft, and Eve's subsequent moving. He could alter his 5ft step into a 10ft movement (of which the fist 5ft are obviously already spent), and then make a standard action attack.

I'm not sure if you should be able to change a 5 ft into a move action. Maybe. This is why Eve is better served readying for his attack, rather than his moving within attacking range, in any case.


I don't feel this hampers the sweetness that is a well executed readied action in any way. Eve still got to prevent a full attack against her, whilst making one of her own.

Instead of full attacking Spike first (they were 5 ft apart...), she blew her entire action to give him one attack against her. She can now full attack him...which she could have done a round prior w/o being attacked at all. Sounds like a poor outcome to me.

[Curmudgeon]

What are you interrupting?
As I stated, you're interrupting their turn, preventing them from getting to take all their actions in unbroken sequence as usual.

Why can't you choose when to interrupt? The whole point of a readied action in most uses for me is to interrupt a specific action.
The whole point of a readied action is to change the initiative sequence; that's why it's listed in the Special Initiative Actions category. Ready has two special provisos whereby you can actually interrupt a spellcaster, but otherwise you preempt, rather than interrupt, the actions when you interrupt their turn.

You're claiming an example/clarification (that readied actions interrupt other actions, my assertion) as a "special rule" (an exception to your assertion) with no proof it is the latter rather than the former.
If readied actions do occur *before* the triggering action, your quote still doesn't prove that a caster MUST proceed with his intended action of casting the spell. If he does, he clearly must make a concentration check or he will lose the spell.
But I see nothing in there overriding the supposed "rule" you claim for how readied actions work that allows the person attacked to change his mind and use his action for something else.
I've cited the rules whereby you can actually interrupt a spell during its casting, rather than preempt that casting. I've also cited the Ready rules stating the readied action normally (i.e., other than interrupting spellcasting) occurs before the action that triggers it, so that preempted action simply didn't happen. I haven't cited any "change his mind" rules because the game doesn't have those. The game has only a few declared actions, so changing their mind is available to all players except in those special cases (Stunning Fist, Power Attack, and a few others).

Your assertions are unfounded unless you can find rules about declared actions which prevent the player from picking any legal actions whenever it's their turn. Here is the basic rule which allows player choice of actions (from Player's Handbook, page 135):
ACTIONS
Every round, on your character’s turn, you may take a standard action and a move action (in either order), two move actions, or one full-round action. You may also perform one or more free actions along with any other action, as your DM allows.

[Twurps]

Instead of full attacking Spike first (they were 5 ft apart...), she blew her entire action to give him one attack against her. She can now full attack him...which she could have done a round prior w/o being attacked at all. Sounds like a poor outcome to me.

First of: Eve still got to full attack before spike got a chance to attack at all. So she really didn't give up anything, much less a full round of it.
Second: If Eve had just used a simple full attack (And lets assume spike survives that, else the whole point is moot), the reply from spike would have been a full attack in return. With the readied action, it's just a standard action attack.

'Normal' sequence:
1) Eve takes 5ft step
2) Eve takes full attack
3) Spike takes full attack
4) Spike has 5ft step to spare
5) Eve has initiative in the next roud

'readied action' sequence:
1) Spike moves 5 ft
2) Eve takes full attack, and 5ft step
3) Spike moves another 5ft, and takes a standard attack.
4) nothing
5) Eve has initiative in the next round

Notice that '2' and '5' is virtually the same, though '2' is actually marginally better for Eve, as she gets to decide where the 5ft step takes her. Notice that both 3 and 4 are stricktly better for Eve

How is this a poor outcome?

[Boci]

First of: Eve still got to full attack before spike got a chance to attack at all. So she really didn't give up anything, much less a full round of it.

You cannot ready a full attack, since its standard actions only.

[AzraelX]

Spike could choose to do something else with his standard action instead of attack: Eve's readied action (by RAW) occurs before his attack, and nothing in the rules requires Spike to follow through with it, especially not if the circumstances have changed.
This answers the thread. Anything that disagrees with this is either wrong or a house rule.

So yes, if Spike hasn't moved yet, he still has his five foot step. If he used part of his movement already, he can continue his movement. By RAW, the readied action takes place before the triggering action, and nothing in the rules requires Spike to follow through with the triggering action if the readied action changed the circumstances.

In addition to this being the RAW mechanics, it's also the only logical way to approach it, so it works on both fronts.

If you move 10 feet forward, try to attack someone, but they "attack you and 5 foot step away", and then the DM says "LOL THATS THE END OF YOUR TURN": walk away from the table. They are not playing by the rules, they are not playing to have fun, they have no concept of game balance, and they are not approaching the game intelligently or sensibly. This would be a red flag that the DM is incapable of critical thinking and/or enjoys running campaigns in an unfair manner.

This nonsense metagame "tactic" would be stupid and unfair, whether it was the players or the NPCs using it. Luckily, that is not how it works by RAW (otherwise, everyone would just house rule it to the fair/functional/sensible/unbroken version).

As for the thread so far, the arguing is just caused by StreamOfTheSky misunderstanding the rules. Curmudgeon has explained most of the flaws in Stream's misreading of the rules, and provided quotes from the rules to explain how it works, so I'll forego doing it again myself. Just be acutely aware when you read this thread that some people will argue over something and try to convince you of it because it's "their position" and it's "the way they originally understood it", not because it's right. This problem tends to permeate internet forums especially.

[Boci]

In addition to this being the RAW mechanics, it's also the only logical way to approach it, so it works on both fronts.

If you move 10 feet forward, try to attack someone, but they "attack you and 5 foot step away", and then the DM says "LOL THATS THE END OF YOUR TURN": walk away from the table. They are not playing by the rules, they are not playing to have fun, they have no concept of game balance, and they are not approaching the game intelligently or sensibly. This would be a red flag that the DM is incapable of critical thinking and/or enjoys running campaigns in an unfair manner.

That's...not entirely correct. Its easy to fluff it in a believable manner, fair, balanced, fun, intelligent and sensible:

Spike moves in to take a swing at Eve. Before he can do this, Eve steps in too close for him to complete the attack and stabs him in the leg, also solder ramming him. Then she steps to the slight. Having suffered an attack and a little off-balance, Spike is then unable to properly counter attack and his blade hits thin air.

I'm pretty sure attack and side step is a real fencing move. It certainly sounds like it should be one. You'd don't have to like it, and maybe it isn't RAW, but to clam its badwrongfun for the DM to include it is...well, wrong.

[Sacrieur]

Spike moves in to take a swing at Eve. Before he can do this, Eve steps in too close for him to complete the attack and stabs him in the leg, also solder ramming him. Then she steps to the slight. Having suffered an attack and a little off-balance, Spike is then unable to properly counter attack and his blade hits thin air.

That's completely absurd. Imagine if a DM did this to you.

[Curmudgeon]

I'm pretty sure attack and side step is a real fencing move. It certainly sounds like it should be one.
Well, ... no. Fencing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fencing) is a linear martial art. You can see that if you're on a 5' grid, moving 5' to the side still leaves you in an adjacent square to your opponent, whereas stepping 5' back does not. In the real world it's the difference between getting 5' away and something like ½√2 of that (3.5'), which is not as effective because you're staying close enough for your opponent to reach with a lunge. In non-sport combat you could side step if that lets you interpose an obstacle between you and the opponent, but that's situational rather than a standard move.

[Boci]

That's completely absurd. Imagine if a DM did this to you.

Imagine a scenario in which an NPC I'm dueling, wins initiative and readies an action, my character heedlessly attacks and gets outplayed for the first round. Its a cool. Not sure why you think its completely absurd.


Well, ... no. Fencing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fencing) is a linear martial art. You can see that if you're on a 5' grid, moving 5' to the side still leaves you in an adjacent square to your opponent, whereas stepping 5' back does not. In the real world it's the difference between getting 5' away and something like ½√2 of that (3.5'), which is not as effective because you're staying close enough for your opponent to reach with a lunge. In non-sport combat you could side step if that lets you interpose an obstacle between you and the opponent, but that's situational rather than a standard move.

This entire tangent is framed in a context outside of RAW, so using RAW adds nothing. Its about fluff and houserules, hence the reference to Eve unbalancing Spike, despite mechanically doing no such thing.

[Curmudgeon]

This entire tangent is framed in a context outside of RAW, so using RAW adds nothing. Its about fluff and houserules, hence the reference to Eve unbalancing Spike, despite mechanically doing no such thing.
OK, if we're talking house rules, then we get to the standard questions for any house rule:

Who benefits?
Who suffers?

As Sacrieur pointed out, if your house rule were applied uniformly then some of the enemies (in forces often numerically superior to the PCs) would be able to reduce the PCs to ineffectiveness by making these "unbalancing" attacks; the rest of the enemies would then get unhindered actions. The PCs would accrue most of the suffering while gaining only occasional benefits.

[Boci]

OK, if we're talking house rules, then we get to the standard questions for any house rule:

Who benefits?
Who suffers?

As Sacrieur pointed out, if your house rule were applied uniformly then some of the enemies (in forces often numerically superior to the PCs) would be able to reduce the PCs to ineffectiveness by making these "unbalancing" attacks; the rest of the enemies would then get unhindered actions. The PCs would accrue most of the suffering while gaining only occasional benefits.

That doesn't make the houserule bad. Some players like to have the odds stacked against them. Plus you are ignoring the possible consideration that only intelligent opponents could use this tactics, which could mean the PCs from it more.

If you don't like this houserule, then don't use it. You are not also required to tell me and StreamOfTheSky that we're having badwrongfun for considering it.

[Sacrieur]

Imagine a scenario in which an NPC I'm dueling, wins initiative and readies an action, my character heedlessly attacks and gets outplayed for the first round. Its a cool. Not sure why you think its completely absurd.

Because you lost an action. I could beat your super buffed up fighter with a level 1 commoner using this absurd method.

[Boci]

Because you lost an action. I could beat your super buffed up fighter with a level 1 commoner using this absurd method.

Assuming the super buffed up fighter doesn't change tactics or have reach, a ranged attack on any other number of abilities that would foil this master strategy.

[charcoalninja]

Siding against Curnugegen here. Readied actions are mechanical inturrupts in response to a character committing an event you designate. With the current opinion a readied action doesn't actually work in a slew of circumstances.

I ready an action to dimension door when an opponent attacks me with a charge. In our way, the opponent charges across the battlefield, reaches the square adjacent to me and attacks. I cast my spell at that moment, teleporting across the battlefield, leaving him there with his entire round wasted.

In Curmugden's interpretation, where my action occurs before the event I want to inturupt, I what, teleport before he moves? After the move but before the attack? If i act before he takes any actions and so he can change his mind, if I dimen door to the other side of the battlefield you're saying my opponent hasn't moved at all, and still has all his actions and may now just charge me in the other direction?

I ready an action to pull a cord when a monster steps into a certain square dropping a piano on his head. So the monster arrives in the square, triggers my attack, but my piano drops before he does anything so he doesn't actually enter the square and my trap does nothing.

I ready an action to brace my spear on a charge, and am charged. However since my action occurs before the charge by your interpretation, my opponent isn't actually charging (since I can't apparently inturrupt actions only turns) and so it's impossible to deal brace damage against a charge except by making an opportunity attack while readied against a charge.

I ready an action to duck behind a barrier when I'm shot at. With your interpretation I ready my action, duck behind a barrier when I'm fired at, I go first so I'm not actually fired at and my opponent then gets his whole round to just walk around the barrier and shoot me.

I could go on, but those examples illustrate my point well enough. A readied action INTURUPTS a trigger. You don't pre-empt. An inturrupt is something that happens in the middle of something.

[Sacrieur]

Assuming the super buffed up fighter doesn't change tactics or have reach, a ranged attack on any other number of abilities that would foil this master strategy.

Tactics are irrelevant.

Condition: Fighter guy attacks me.

Action: Move out of threatened square.

---

Because it was already stated that if I move out of the square you lose your attack action, there's nothing you can do to beat me.

[Boci]

Tactics are irrelevant.

Condition: Fighter guy attacks me.

Action: Move out of threatened square.

---

Because it was already stated that if I move out of the square you lose your attack action, there's nothing you can do to beat me.

Without a tumble check you'll provoke an attack of opportunity. The fighter could try to grapple, the fighter could switch to a ranged attack (or maybe their reach is sufficient to still hit the level 1 commoner) or attempt to intimidate, stop fighting and force the combat to be over and new initiative to be rolled when they press the offensive again, or just move up and not attack but ready an action as their own.

This isn't nearly as unbeatable as you think it is.

[squiggit]

Assuming the super buffed up fighter doesn't change tactics or have reach, a ranged attack on any other number of abilities that would foil this master strategy.

And even then the commoner doesn't "beat" the fighter. He just gets to run away.

[Twurps]

Siding against Curnugegen here. Readied actions are mechanical inturrupts in response to a character committing an event you designate. With the current opinion a readied action doesn't actually work in a slew of circumstances.

I ready an action to dimension door when an opponent attacks me with a charge. In our way, the opponent charges across the battlefield, reaches the square adjacent to me and attacks. I cast my spell at that moment, teleporting across the battlefield, leaving him there with his entire round wasted.

In Curmugden's interpretation, where my action occurs before the event I want to inturupt, I what, teleport before he moves? After the move but before the attack? If i act before he takes any actions and so he can change his mind, if I dimen door to the other side of the battlefield you're saying my opponent hasn't moved at all, and still has all his actions and may now just charge me in the other direction?

I ready an action to pull a cord when a monster steps into a certain square dropping a piano on his head. So the monster arrives in the square, triggers my attack, but my piano drops before he does anything so he doesn't actually enter the square and my trap does nothing.

I ready an action to brace my spear on a charge, and am charged. However since my action occurs before the charge by your interpretation, my opponent isn't actually charging (since I can't apparently inturrupt actions only turns) and so it's impossible to deal brace damage against a charge except by making an opportunity attack while readied against a charge.

I ready an action to duck behind a barrier when I'm shot at. With your interpretation I ready my action, duck behind a barrier when I'm fired at, I go first so I'm not actually fired at and my opponent then gets his whole round to just walk around the barrier and shoot me.

I could go on, but those examples illustrate my point well enough. A readied action INTURUPTS a trigger. You don't pre-empt. An inturrupt is something that happens in the middle of something.

This has very little to do with RAW, and a lot with very poor choice of your readied action triggers.
You get to specify what triggers your readied action.
If your trigger is: 'When opponent charges me', you teleport before the charge starts. If you specify: 'when opponent strikes me in his charge' you get to teleport after your opponent moved.

If you specify: 'I drop the piano when opponent reaches X'. The piano drops on an empty X. If you specify: 'I drop the piano when opponent leaves X' then piano lands on his head.

Don't Blame RAW (or curmudgeon) for your poor choice in readied action triggers.

[Boci]

Don't Blame RAW (or curmudgeon) for your poor choice in readied action triggers.

You can absolutely blame RAW for being un-intuitive, and the two examples you just listed could potentially qualify as that for some people, especially when one of the most common uses for readying actions breaks this rule, and this being an exception is hardly obvious.

[OldTrees1]

One side argues for a case where 1v1 fights are trivialized(5ft step out of attacked square prevents being hit except by iterative ranged attacks).

The other side argues for a case where readied actions are so limited in scope that they cannot adequately describe martial tactics (due to inability to prepare for the schrodinger's cat that is non committed actions).

Why presume either is a valid position for a good rule(remembering that RAW is frequently not a good rule)?

[Boci]

One side argues for a case where 1v1 fights are trivialized(5ft step out of attacked square prevents being hit except by iterative ranged attacks).

Again, it doesn't trivialize 1v1 fights. It only does that if the one the actions are being readied against refuses to change tactics.

That said, a compromise if often a wise solution. How about "If you move in response to being attack, that attack has a 50% miss chance/you can attempt a reflex save/opposed roll to negate the attack, as you must time your movements precisely"? And if we use a reflex save, what DC should it be?

[Sacrieur]

Without a tumble check you'll provoke an attack of opportunity.

Nope, because it's the fighter's turn and he's already doing an action. I guess this highlights why it doesn't work, we're already having disagreements about the mechanics.



The fighter could try to grapple,

No, because grappling is an attack, so my commoner just steps away as the fighter reaches into empty air.



the fighter could switch to a ranged attack (or maybe their reach is sufficient to still hit the level 1 commoner)

No, because when you make the attack the commoner moves out of the square you were targeting and it whizzes through empty air.



or attempt to intimidate,

Demoralization doesn't help you.



stop fighting and force the combat to be over and new initiative to be rolled when they press the offensive again, or just move up and not attack but ready an action as their own.

Neither of those work.



This isn't nearly as unbeatable as you think it is.

Of course it isn't, because the rules don't endorse this absurd system of playing where you lose actions you haven't taken yet.



Why presume either is a valid position for a good rule(remembering that RAW is frequently not a good rule)?

The RAW is a good way to do things here, there's no exception. It's NOT following the rules that leads to problems.

[OldTrees1]

Again, it doesn't trivialize 1v1 fights. It only does that if the one the actions are being readied against refuses to change tactics.

That said, a compromise if often a wise solution. How about "If you move in response to being attack, that attack has a 50% miss chance/you can attempt a reflex save to negate the attack, as you must time your movements precisely".

You are a fighter with a Longbow, a Longsword, and a bag of Flour. You have BAB +5 (ranged attacks with BAB +6 can land the 2nd arrow as I said)

Give me a turn that lands a blow against "5ft step out of reach when my square or I am attacked".


That said, your compromise is a good quick patch. While the entire readied action mechanic should get an overall patch, such a patch would take more time to think of then one has on a thread like this.


The RAW is a good way to do things here, there's no exception. It's NOT following the rules that leads to problems.

When all readings of the RAW are unsatisfactory to the DM and the Players, then it makes sense to later amend the imperfect WotC rules with a better houserule. This process is common in RPGs and can be found in all generations of D&D(including in various DMGs). Since this is an online thread that split into 2 discussion(one RAW and the other Rules) and thus people are in hypothetical rather than actual circumstances, this counts as the "later" in the circumstance as the beginning of this paragraph.

[Troacctid]

If you specify: 'I drop the piano when opponent reaches X'. The piano drops on an empty X. If you specify: 'I drop the piano when opponent leaves X' then piano lands on his head.


But if you can't interrupt the action, there's no difference, is there? Either way you'll drop the piano before they leave their original square, since it happens before their move action.

[Boci]

Nope, because it's the fighter's turn and he's already doing an action. I guess this highlights why it doesn't work, we're already having disagreements about the mechanics.

I'm pretty sure a DM is free to rule the fighter gets his AoO. Besides, this is all in the context of a houserule.



No, because grappling is an attack, so my commoner just steps away as the fighter reaches into empty air.

Again, DM could rule that it is not


No, because when you make the attack the commoner moves out of the square you were targeting and it whizzes through empty air.

And then attack again. Plus, reach weapons.



Demoralization doesn't help you.

Unless the DM rules otherwise.



Neither of those work.

You've always specified why they don't work until now, why don't these work? Not that it matters, this is a houserule, so you cannot assume the Dm won't make further house rules to make it fair.


Of course it isn't, because the rules don't endorse this absurd system of playing where you lose actions you haven't taken yet.

Its not absurd just because you don't like it.

You are a fighter with a Longbow, a Longsword, and a bag of Flour. You have BAB +5 (ranged attacks with BAB +6 can land the 2nd arrow as I said)

Give me a turn that lands a blow against "5ft step out of reach when my square or I am attacked".

Don't attack him, neither side acts, combat ends, then the fighter moves to attack and new initiative is rolled.

[Sacrieur]

That said, your compromise is a good quick patch. While the entire readied action mechanic should get an overall patch, such a patch would take more time to think of then one has on a thread like this.

Nothing needs to be patched. He's patching a problem that he created.

Curmudgeon and others have already elaborately laid out how it works, why it works that way, and why it's a good idea.

[Boci]

The RAW is a good way to do things here, there's no exception.

Umm, how many sequel threads has the original dysfunctional RAW spawned? I'm pretty sure its at least 7.

[Sacrieur]

I'm pretty sure a DM is free to rule the fighter gets his AoO. Besides, this is all in the context of a houserule.

Again, DM could rule that it is not

So DM fiat should cover up its flaws? Sounds totally fair when your character tries to do something similar and the DM rules that it doesn't matter because he decided it didn't trigger your action out of whim.



And then attack again. Plus, reach weapons.

You already used up your attack action. Plus he can move out of the range of a reach weapon.



You've always specified why they don't work until now, why don't these work? Not that it matters, this is a houserule, so you cannot assume the Dm won't make further house rules to make it fair.

You're attempting to fix something that isn't broken by breaking it and applying patchwork fixes.



Its not absurd just because you don't like it.

Losing an action you haven't taken is absurd.

[OldTrees1]

Nothing needs to be patched. He's patching a problem that he created.

Curmudgeon and others have already elaborately laid out how it works, why it works that way, and why it's a good idea.

And others have laid out the disadvantages of using such a ruling and why their also flawed ruling lacks those disadvantages. Just because you don't see a problem does not mean others don't have problems.

[Boci]

So DM fiat should cover up its flaws? Sounds totally fair when your character tries to do something similar and the DM rules that it doesn't matter because he decided it didn't trigger your action out of whim.

You don't have to like it, but I wouldn't mind it as a player. It could be mis-used, but any aspect of the game could be. Now am I having badwrongfun, or do we just have different preferences for a very versatile game?

[charcoalninja]

Aside from not actually working at all. Since I could say I attack a guy when he triggers a glyph of warding. He opens the chest triggering the glyph which triggers my attack. My attack kills him outright thus in your flawed RAW negates him ever opening the chest in the first place, thus never triggering the glyph, thus never triggering my attack, thus not dying, thus opening the chest, thus triggering the glyph, thus triggering my attack which kills him, thus negating his action... And on and on.

The rules don't say pre-empt, they say interrupt. You cannot interrupt the completion of your trigger if you pre-empt it. That is impossible.

[OldTrees1]

You are a fighter with a Longbow, a Longsword, and a bag of Flour. You have BAB +5 (ranged attacks with BAB +6 can land the 2nd arrow as I said)

Give me a turn that lands a blow against "5ft step out of reach when my square or I am attacked".

Don't attack him, neither side acts, combat ends, then the fighter moves to attack and new initiative is rolled.

Interesting proposed solution. However I would rule the readying an action action is an action. So the Fighter might consider the combat ended, but the opponent is still acting with an initiative with respect to the Fighter. So the Fighter would have to disengage and then ambush later. Getting 1 attack(charge or ranged shot) per ambush seems like a dysfunctional ruling to me (hence why we agree a compromise is a better ruling).

Now personally my quick compromise would be:
Use the interrupting readied action, but have 5E's full attack + movement before/between/after attacks system. This allows a readied action to interrupt 1 attack and maybe prevent another but prevents the 1 hit/encounter dysfunction.

[Curmudgeon]

I ready an action to dimension door when an opponent attacks me with a charge. In our way, the opponent charges across the battlefield, reaches the square adjacent to me and attacks. I cast my spell at that moment, teleporting across the battlefield, leaving him there with his entire round wasted.

In Curmugden's interpretation, where my action occurs before the event I want to inturupt, I what, teleport before he moves? After the move but before the attack? If i act before he takes any actions and so he can change his mind, if I dimen door to the other side of the battlefield you're saying my opponent hasn't moved at all, and still has all his actions and may now just charge me in the other direction?
Your basic premise is flawed. You can't Ready to act "when an opponent attacks me with a charge" because you Ready based on a triggering condition in the game, not an action choice made at the gaming table. Your character has no insight into what particular D&D actions their opponent's player is using. You can make your trigger based on the opponent starting to attack your PC. As I've previously posted, a player is free to choose any legal D&D actions at any time, which means they're not committed to a particular action at the table until it is unambiguously taken. The opponent moving up to their speed in a straight line to where they threaten your character could be a Charge, or it could be a normal move, or it could be the start of a Spring Attack; you certainly can't know, because the moving character doesn't commit the player to any of these until the game requires a choice which excludes all other possibilities. If you really could designate a table-only action as a trigger instead of an in-game condition, then using Ready vs. a Charge means the opponent could use a normal move and a standard action attack, then add a full attack from a Belt of Battle, and your PC would just stand there and take it all (and maybe die). Luckily for you, you can only Ready using an in-game triggering condition rather than a gaming table action choice. If you Ready to cast when they start to attack, you'll provoke an AoO unless you cast defensively. Assuming you successfully cast the spell, the would-be attacker hasn't actually attacked; they have moved. They're probably not able to use a Charge at that point, but they might have enough movement left to pick another target for a standard action attack. At best you've eliminated Charge as a legal action for them and left a double move as the only possibility, and you've foiled their ability to attack this round. What you certainly haven't gained is the ability to go back a few seconds in time and prevent them from moving.

[Boci]

Interesting proposed solution. However I would rule the readying an action action is an action. So the Fighter might consider the combat ended, but the opponent is still acting with an initiative with respect to the Fighter. So the Fighter would have to disengage and then ambush later. Getting 1 attack(charge or ranged shot) per ambush seems like a dysfunctional ruling to me (hence why we agree a compromise is a better ruling).

Its a tad inelegant yes, but just to be clear, the fight wouldn't end instantly. More like this:

Commoner: Wins initiative, readied action.
Fighter, attempts to attack.
Commoner: Readied action goes off, they attack and negate the fighters attempt by stepping away, readies an action once again.
Fighter: Fighter sees the potential pattern and doesn't attack, saying 5ft away and readying an action of their own.

Now both have a readied action for the other to act, so neither will until one drops their readied action. The DM's allows priority as it were to pass between two combatants (probably taking a full round in game if it matters). If after 6 seconds neither has switched up their tactics, they declare that since neither side has acted they are now out of initiative and that it will be rolled again as soon as one takes an aggressive action.

[Anlashok]

Of course it isn't, because the rules don't endorse this absurd system of playing where you lose actions you haven't taken yet.
Without taking a side because it's not a particularly interesting argument.

You can't claim absurdity when you're simultaneously arguing for an absurd system of playing where you react to things that never happen in the first place.


Nope, because it's the fighter's turn and he's already doing an action. I guess this highlights why it doesn't work, we're already having disagreements about the mechanics.

Also neither of these things have anything to do with AoOs in the first place so I'm not sure why you're bringing them up.



No, because when you make the attack the commoner moves out of the square you were targeting and it whizzes through empty air.

This one is also wrong, because of this line:
"Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action."

At the end of your move, the character is still capable of making a ranged attack against you (unless you move out of the weapon's maximum range of course) so you still get hit.

[Troacctid]

Luckily for you, you can only Ready using an in-game triggering condition rather than a gaming table action choice. If you Ready to cast when they start to attack, you'll provoke an AoO unless you cast defensively. Assuming you successfully cast the spell, the would-be attacker hasn't actually attacked; they have moved. They're probably not able to use a Charge at that point, but they might have enough movement left to pick another target for a standard action attack. At best you've eliminated Charge as a legal action for them and left a double move as the only possibility, and you've foiled their ability to attack this round. What you certainly haven't gained is the ability to go back a few seconds in time and prevent them from moving.

But this means interrupting them midway through the action. If the readied action always occurs before the triggering action, you shouldn't be able to do that. You'd take the readied action at the start of their movement, not partway through it.

[squiggit]

How does readying an action against spellcasting work with this interpretation? The ready action description says

Distracting Spellcasters
You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger "if she starts casting a spell." If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Concentration check result).
But under the pre-emptive interpretation of the RAW, the spellcaster never casts the spell in the first place and can choose not to cast it at all even if they fail the concentration check. So.. I'm not sure what would happen here. Do they lose a spell they've never cast? Does the readied action do nothing at all because they aren't casting in the first place when the attack hits under this interpretation of the rules? Can they just cast another spell?

[Curmudgeon]

But this means interrupting them midway through the action.
It's not "midway through the action" when the action hasn't been finalized. They've moved. If they moved in a straight line toward a valid target, it might have been movement compatible with a Charge, but that's never guaranteed.

A bit of unnoticed muddy ground along the way will make a Charge impossible; that's way more likely than an intended target teleporting away. The game doesn't rewind to undo the movement when the character encounters some mud. A desired Charge isn't an actual Charge until all the requirements for that action, in both movement and attack, have been met.



But under the pre-emptive interpretation of the RAW, the spellcaster never casts the spell in the first place ...
That's not the RAW for spellcasting. There's a special rule, just for spellcasting, which I'll quote again:
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). For everything else: the interrupted action didn't occur, but was preempted. For spellcasting, the casting action itself is interrupted.

[charcoalninja]

Looked at the text again on d20srd an have to revoke my disagreement. The RAW is as Curmugden is laying it out. Time loops, clunky causality and all, but that's what the rules are.

[The Random NPC]

You are a fighter with a Longbow, a Longsword, and a bag of Flour. You have BAB +5 (ranged attacks with BAB +6 can land the 2nd arrow as I said)

Give me a turn that lands a blow against "5ft step out of reach when my square or I am attacked".

With the Longbow, you use Rapid Shot to give yourself 2 attacks per turn. With the Longsword, you use Two-Weapon Fighting to give yourself 2 attacks per turn. Either way, the Commoner is likely dead.

[OldTrees1]

With the Longbow, you use Rapid Shot to give yourself 2 attacks per turn. With the Longsword, you use Two-Weapon Fighting to give yourself 2 attacks per turn. Either way, the Commoner is likely dead.
Those do work, but does reliance on those to avoid this problem make those feats be feat taxes for any Fighter under 6th level?

[Troacctid]

It's not "midway through the action" when the action hasn't been finalized. They've moved. If they moved in a straight line toward a valid target, it might have been movement compatible with a Charge, but that's never guaranteed.

A bit of unnoticed muddy ground along the way will make a Charge impossible; that's way more likely than an intended target teleporting away. The game doesn't rewind to undo the movement when the character encounters some mud. A desired Charge isn't an actual Charge until all the requirements for that action, in both movement and attack, have been met.

So Alice charges 30 feet towards Bob, moving exactly her speed and triggering Bob's readied action to teleport away if Alice comes within 5 feet of him. You propose that the teleport happens before Alice can make her melee attack, and the charge retroactively becomes a move action. Okay, fine, except in that scenario, the readied action happened after the action that triggered it, which is explicitly contrary to the rules.

[Curmudgeon]

So Alice charges 30 feet towards Bob, moving exactly her speed and triggering Bob's readied action to teleport away if Alice comes within 5 feet of him. You propose that the teleport happens before Alice can make her melee attack ...
I believe the source of the confusion is this single highlighted word:
The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. Prior to this sentence the Ready trigger is referred to as a condition, not an action. If the trigger condition is established just as Alice finishes her move action, then having Bob's readied action occur before Alice's move action means that Alice didn't move and thus didn't trigger anything.

Of course, that's nonsensical.

The alternative is that the word "action" is (necessarily) being used in two ways. From the point of view of the player using Ready, Bob's readied action is from the D&D set {standard, move, free}. However, this player has no insight into the game table actions chosen to move Alice; they don't know if it's a move action, multiple move actions, a swift action with Travel Devotion, a Charge, or something else. While their PC's (Bob's) actions are known and codified in D&D terms, Alice's D&D actions are not known to Bob's player. Accordingly, Alice's "action" that triggers Bob's readied action cannot be described in D&D terms and thus it has its usual meaning ("something done or performed; act; deed").

Bob's readied action is triggered by Alice moving within 5' of him. The readied action occurs just before the trigger condition. Alice's player continues her turn afterward.

[Anlashok]

You are a fighter with a Longbow, a Longsword, and a bag of Flour. You have BAB +5 (ranged attacks with BAB +6 can land the 2nd arrow as I said)

Give me a turn that lands a blow against "5ft step out of reach when my square or I am attacked".

You attack with the longbow. The commoner moves 5 feet. You finish your attack with the longbow (as the ready action specifies that the action continues as normal if the character is still capable of doing so and the commoner has not moved out of the longbow's range). The commoner dies.

Or you move adjacent to the target, attack, the commoner moves and you kill the commoner with an AoO because the commoner is now moving out of a square you threaten. The commoner dies.

Seems... pretty easy actually.

[OldTrees1]

You attack with the longbow. The commoner moves 5 feet. You finish your attack with the longbow (as the ready action specifies that the action continues as normal if the character is still capable of doing so and the commoner has not moved out of the longbow's range). The commoner dies.

Or you move adjacent to the target, attack, the commoner moves and you kill the commoner with an AoO because the commoner is now moving out of a square you threaten. The commoner dies.

Seems... pretty easy actually.

1) The action that continues as normal has a different target (commoner in square A) than the action you are equating it to(commoner in square B or the equally invalid target of the fly still in square A). Continuing as normal would be firing at the prior target(the now vacant square). But that cannot be completed as normal any more due to a lack of a commoner, right?
(The question I posed initially was to the precommit side of the argument, if you are on the time travel side of the argument, then the question is trivially solved by your answer)

2) I believe you forgot how 5ft steps work. The commoner is never at risk of an AoO.

Both RAW positions in this argument have serious flaws, in my humble opinion, so I urge you to evaluate this issue with caution.

[Anlashok]

1) The action that continues as normal has a different target (commoner in square A) than the action you are equating it to(commoner in square B or the equally invalid target of the fly still in square A). Continuing as normal would be firing at the prior target(the now vacant square). But that cannot be completed as normal any more due to a lack of a commoner, right?
(The question I posed initially was to the precommit side of the argument, if you are on the time travel side of the argument, then the question is trivially solved by your answer)
The action is a ranged attack against the commoner. At the end of the readied action (5 feet of movement) the commoner is still a valid target for the ranged attack, so the attack finishes. Ditto if the commoner is moving away from a melee attack and still ends up within the enemy's reach at the end of the movement.


2) I believe you forgot how 5ft steps work. The commoner is never at risk of an AoO.
This would be a problem if the commoner was making a 5 foot step. However, you can't actually ready a 5 foot step, only a standard action, move action or free action. As per the PHB (and SRD) a 5 foot step is none of those things, so the commoner is readying a move action to move 5 feet and is therefore provoking AoOs normally.

[OldTrees1]

The action is a ranged attack against the commoner. At the end of the readied action (5 feet of movement) the commoner is still a valid target for the ranged attack, so the attack finishes. Ditto if the commoner is moving away from a melee attack and still ends up within the enemy's reach at the end of the movement.


This would be a problem if the commoner was making a 5 foot step. However, you can't actually ready a 5 foot step, only a standard action, move action or free action. As per the PHB (and SRD) a 5 foot step is none of those things, so the commoner is readying a move action to move 5 feet and is therefore provoking AoOs normally.

1) Interesting, so you are taking the position to allow the Fighter to rewind time to change the direction of their shot, but are stopping short of allowing them to rewind time to change their Standard Action or even their Target/Weapon of Choice?
That's a bold move Cotton. Sounds like it has some doublethink in it but it results in a better solution than the main 2 arguments fighting in this thread. Good Luck.

2)from SRD but also true in Pathfinder

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.

[The Random NPC]

Those do work, but does reliance on those to avoid this problem make those feats be feat taxes for any Fighter under 6th level?

Nah, it's such a rare occurrence that it wouldn't be a Feat tax. Besides, you can Two-Weapon Fight without the feats.

[OldTrees1]

Nah, it's such a rare occurrence that it wouldn't be a Feat tax. Besides, you can Two-Weapon Fight without the feats.

Well, under the ruling that makes it troublesome (rulings that result in finding solutions like yours) it would be a stronger and thus more frequent NPC strategy. However the untrained TWF case would be viable vs weaker enemies. The case of using untrained TWF against the situation in the OP sounds less likely but potentially viable as part of a party.

[AzraelX]

Assuming the super buffed up fighter doesn't change tactics or have reach, a ranged attack on any other number of abilities that would foil this master strategy.
This is the definition of "absurd". A high-leveled fighter with 120-foot movement speed and a sword should be able to kill an untrained unarmed defenseless commoner child. Requiring the fighter to switch to a different weapon in that scenario just to get the chance to land a hit is absurd.

The idea is bad in both theory and execution. It's made even worse by the fact anyone can do it, and "you can technically beat it if you have the right stuff and only play in one specific way and don't play your class the way it was intended" does not make it better.


I ready an action to dimension door when an opponent attacks me with a charge. I what, teleport before he moves? After the move but before the attack?
That's what I'd ask you as DM, because your stated condition is needlessly ambiguous. Let's assume your character in-game can differentiate charges from normal movement. Are you readying the action to Dimension Door when the opponent charges, or when he attacks you at the end of a charge? You can't have it both ways.

You could even specify a condition like "an opponent 15 feet away is charging towards me", which would let you react to someone who charges towards you while they are mid-charge. A charge is a movement, after all, and is meant to be treated as one (triggers AOO, etc).

This is more about defining good conditions for your readied actions.


I ready an action to pull a cord when a monster steps into a certain square dropping a piano on his head. So the monster arrives in the square, triggers my attack, but my piano drops before he does anything so he doesn't actually enter the square and my trap does nothing.
This is just a poorly worded action. You write your own readied action, so you can easily specify the timing you desire.


I ready an action to brace my spear on a charge, and am charged. However since my action occurs before the charge by your interpretation, my opponent isn't actually charging (since I can't apparently inturrupt actions only turns) and so it's impossible to deal brace damage against a charge except by making an opportunity attack while readied against a charge.
You brace your weapon for the charge. "Brace" is a mechanic that works a specific way, so there's no room for ambiguity, no matter how badly someone words their readied action. The braced weapon hits the charging character.


I ready an action to duck behind a barrier when I'm shot at. With your interpretation I ready my action, duck behind a barrier when I'm fired at, I go first so I'm not actually fired at and my opponent then gets his whole round to just walk around the barrier and shoot me.
Yeah, that's correct. You saw he was about to shoot at you, and moved out of the way. If you want to wait until the arrow is in mid-flight, then you need to use your AC to avoid it. That's what AC is for, after all.


I could say I attack a guy when he triggers a glyph of warding. He opens the chest triggering the glyph which triggers my attack. My attack kills him outright
Distinct events need to be considered separately from one another (e.g., a "charge" is not an instantaneous teleport, it's a movement across a series of squares). In this case, "opening the chest" was not your triggering action, "triggering a glyph of warding" was. The act of "opening the chest" was one distinct action, and it completed. That triggers the glyph of warding; assuming it has a visible effect or your character otherwise knows a glyph of warding was triggered, they would then attack the guy and kill him. Then the effect of the glyph of warding would complete.

If your character was aware that opening the chest would trigger the glyph of warding, you could make a case that "opening the chest" should count, but that's just another example of writing readied actions in a needlessly ambiguous way.


"Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action."
Yeah; this can also be read as "You acted on his turn, but his turn doesn't end". Nothing suggests he should ignore your action as if it didn't just happen. It did.


But this means interrupting them midway through the action. If the readied action always occurs before the triggering action, you shouldn't be able to do that. You'd take the readied action at the start of their movement, not partway through it.
"An opponent 10 feet away moves towards me."


Looked at the text again on d20srd an have to revoke my disagreement. The RAW is as Curmugden is laying it out. Time loops, clunky causality and all, but that's what the rules are.
I wish I had read this far before replying to all the previous stuff :smalltongue: Hopefully what I wrote already will help with the causality stuff though.


This would be a problem if the commoner was making a 5 foot step. However, you can't actually ready a 5 foot step
Except for the part where it explicitly states that you can ready a 5-foot step, and can even ready it alongside any other action.

[Curmudgeon]

Except for the part where it explicitly states that you can ready a 5-foot step, and can even ready it alongside any other action.
You've got that backward, I'm afraid. You cannot ready a 5' step. You can ready one from the {standard, move, free} action set and add a 5' step, but you can't ready (only) a 5' step.

[Boci]

This is the definition of "absurd". A high-leveled fighter with 120-foot movement speed and a sword should be able to kill an untrained unarmed defenseless commoner child.

What's absurd is that you are insisting that the already unlikely scenario of a high level fighter vs. an unarmed commoner child be played with full rules, initiative rolled and proper action sequences. Dunno about, but in my games the rules would be skipped over the rule for such a scenario.

Once again: don't like this use of readied actions, don't use the house rule. Just stop telling people they are doing it wrong if they think it could be neat to include.

[AzraelX]

You cannot ready a 5' step.
Sure you can (although I get what you mean, that the ready action doesn't explicitly include it, which is true).

The normal RAW reasoning is that the handful of free actions listed in the rulebook are stated to be "some common free actions", which means the list is not exhaustive nor is it intended to be. This is also demonstrated by the fact that many other examples of free actions are given elsewhere in the text (making an opposed grapple check, releasing a pinned opponent, guiding a mount, handling your animal companion, etc). While each DM can decide what actions are simple enough to qualify as a free action, and they are likely to make different determinations, the "not an action" actions are specifically stated to be less demanding than a free action (for the benefit of the player), and would necessarily qualify as actions which can be taken as a free action (which you could do regardless, such as by sighing while you 5-foot step, or licking your lips, or taking any other trivial action that qualifies as free).

The hyper-pedantic RAW reasoning is that "readying a 5-foot step" is equivalent to "readying a ready action, which is readied to speak under the condition that I am unconscious, and taking a 5-foot step before the readied ready action". There are infinitely trivial ways to make an equivalent statement. If someone ever says they're readying a 5-foot step, and your DM is truly too hyper-pedantic to stomach it, then he can substitute it with a longer equivalent statement that has an identical meaning; although it makes no sense to only ready a 5-foot step, since there should always be something you could be doing alongside your 5-foot step that's to your strategic advantage (attack, total defense, get an item, etc). Still, it's perfectly within the capabilities of the player to only take a 5-foot step with their readied action if they really want to throw away their standard action, even by the most hyper-pedantic RAW reading.

The common sense reasoning is that if you can use a free action to "take a 5-foot step while speaking a silent vowel sound", then you can also "take a 5-foot step" with that same action.

The approach you take really just comes down to how much of a complete jackass the DM wants to be, but no matter what, it's perfectly within the rules to only take a 5-foot step (as a free action, or alongside a standard action which does nothing) with your readied action (regardless of it being a poor decision for your character in most circumstances).


the already unlikely scenario of a high level fighter vs. an unarmed commoner child
Yes, commoners are never killed by higher level PCs or NPCs. It's very rare for towns to be raided or villagers killed, and the BBEG certainly never mistreats people without class levels. What you're saying isn't absurd at all.


played with full rules
This isn't the homebrew forum. "Full rules" is called "RAW", and it's what people primarily discuss in this forum.


in my games the rules would be skipped over
That's interesting. You can skip all the rules, really; no one can stop you. It's highly unrelated to this thread though.


don't use the house rule
Of course not. It's absurd :smallsmile:

[Curmudgeon]

... it's perfectly within the rules to only take a 5-foot step with your readied action (regardless of it being a poor decision for your character in most circumstances).
Still not right. If your opponent has some ability which triggers on any enemy action, then a 5' step (officially not an action) would not trigger it. The action (free or otherwise) you're required to use with Ready in order to take that 5' step would trigger the opponent's ability.

These details matter, in a game as full of details as D&D.

[AzraelX]

True enough, thanks for pointing that out. I worded that statement poorly. It's been corrected now :smalltongue:

[Boci]

It's very rare for towns to be raided or villagers killed, and the BBEG certainly never mistreats people without class levels.

Since those things typically don't take place on screen,


This isn't the homebrew forum. "Full rules" is called "RAW", and it's what people primarily discuss in this forum.

There is an impressive amount of wrong in so few words:

1. There is a fair bit of leeway between "Homebrew" and "Full rules". A DM making a call like here for example, belongs in this forum, not homebrew, which is for more substantial creations.
2. Yes, primarily. As in, not exclusively.
3. Very few people play full RAW. Sooner or later, most groups encounter something which they would like to tweak or change, and this forum is perfectly capable of handling such a premise.


That's interesting. You can skip all the rules, really; no one can stop you. It's highly unrelated to this thread though.

Its highly related, because you are highlighting a problem that won't matter under my handling of a PC decided to chop up a commoner, and whilst I cannot speak for DMs as a whole, I can say I am not unique in this approach.

But even if you want initiative and proper actions for a PC vs. a commoner, you can just decide the commoner doesn't use this tactic. Why not? Same reason they aren't proficient with any martial weapons. They have no training, would want to risk a maneuver which requires such precise timing.

Really your problems with this rule speak more to your inability to handle it than any absurdity with the rule itself.


Of course not. It's absurd :smallsmile:

Well done, I guess?

[AzraelX]

Its highly related, because you are highlighting a problem that won't matter under my handling of a PC decided to chop up a commoner
It's highly unrelated, because that was merely one example which demonstrates that what you're advocating is bad game design: You have to hand-wave encounters where one side should certainly win, because otherwise they couldn't.

The fact is that you continue to focus on the specific example of "a high-level fighter versus a commoner", even though that example was used to demonstrate how extremely broken it is. Every less-extreme example is also applicable.

Hint: If the defenseless commoner can use this tactic against your fighter to prevent him from ever landing a hit, then so can every other enemy in the game, because they are even better than a defenseless commoner.

So while you may claim to ignore the rules and encounters themselves whenever there's a difference of at least a few levels, the problem becomes worse—not better—when the enemies doing it are a higher level than you instead of being weak and defenseless.

I'm under the impression you're just theory crafting here, and haven't actually playtested it; or you "use it" but never actually use readied actions, so it never comes up, and thus you don't really use it (judging by "you can just decide the commoner doesn't use this tactic", lol). Anyone with any experience with readied actions would know that the game is neither designed nor balanced to function the way you've described, and what you're suggesting offers to add nothing to the game.

I mean, unless you consider "hand-waving encounters that could have been fun" and "purposely handicapping enemies by not allowing them to use readied actions to perform legitimate tactics which you only restrict because your houserule breaks the game" and "gives PCs a way to be extraordinarily cheesy and unhittable in some situations even if they have no gear" to be worthwhile merits.


Really your problems with this rule speak more to your inability to handle it than any absurdity with the rule itself.
No, I already acknowledged that if you change all the rules and heavily restrict the gameplay possibilities and ban legitimate tactics normally allowed to characters, you can restore some semblance of balance. The question is: Why would you go out of your way to change this rule, and make all these other changes while scrambling to accommodate it, just to purposely detract from your campaign? A lot of negative aspects of this have been listed, even by yourself, but not a single benefit has been suggested.

The reason no one wants to "handle" your house rule is because it adds nothing to the game, and reduces the content which can be enjoyed by the players, both in tactics and the encounters themselves. Considering the importance placed on combat (most of the rulebook is dedicated to it, more than any other topic), making arbitrary changes just to reduce its depth is not desired by anyone.

I feel like you've taken it personally that multiple people have called your proposition "absurd". I hope you know that it isn't because you're collectively disliked, and isn't about you at all, so you shouldn't take it personally; it's merely the result of your proposed house rule being bad by any objective measure.

Basically, the only reason it's being called absurd by people is because it is absurd. Please try not to take such offense, as no personal offense was intended.

I guess I should just fallback to an earlier statement already made:

Just be acutely aware when you read this thread that some people will argue over something and try to convince you of it because it's "their position" and it's "the way they originally understood it", not because it's right. This problem tends to permeate internet forums especially.


Well done
Thanks! I appreciate the words of encouragement :smallsmile:

[Boci]

It's highly unrelated, because that was merely one example which demonstrates that what you're advocating is bad game design: You have to hand-wave encounters where one side should certainly win, because otherwise they couldn't.

No, this comes back to you being unable to handle the rules. I already explained the other side could break it by readying their own action and forcing an initiative reset. Plus if that was too inelegant I also offered a compromise of a less than 100% but greater than 0% chance to avoid the attack.


The reason no one wants to "handle" your house rule is because it adds nothing to the game, and reduces the content which can be enjoyed by the players, both in tactics and the encounters themselves.

Okay thank you, this helps clarify things. I had been wondering about your position and where it comes from, and this helps clarify how it came about, you've been selectively reading this thread and ignoring the people who were open to a different take on readied actions like StreamOfTheSky and OldTrees1. You were arguing with charcoalninja about readied actions, implying the unit you claim above may not be a thing.

I'll say it again, although it didn't seem to work the first time, there's no right or wrong answer. Happy with readied actions as they are? Want to tweak them? Both are equally good. The problems is when you start trying to claim your opinion, whichever is it, is the only valid one. Which is what you are doing.

I hope you understand that me disagreeing with you about the way I play my game isn't personal, its just that I believe your opinions on the subject matter are pretty much irrelevant when compared to mine.

Now are you going to misquote any of this, or focus on the easy one?


Thanks! I appreciate the words of encouragement :smallsmile:

Do you think doing this is clever?

Becomes "doing this is clever" very quickly.

[AzraelX]

No, this comes back to you being unable to handle the rules.
Already responded to:

No, I already acknowledged that if you change all the rules and heavily restrict the gameplay possibilities and ban legitimate tactics normally allowed to characters, you can restore some semblance of balance.
1) Note that this is just me repeating the ways you gave of "handling" the house rule, which boil down to "don't really use the house rule, because it doesn't work".

2) I can handle the rules, because luckily the rule-makers tried to create a semblance of balance in their game by excluding things that were too absurd :smallsmile:


there's no right or wrong answer.
Yes, there is. Your original question:


can their opponent take a 5ft step after them, or do they need to finish their attack first?
This is not "what house rules do you use in this situation". It's clearly asking how it works by RAW.

Thus there is a right answer, and you've long-since been given it. Randomly bringing up house rules is, again, highly irrelevant to this thread.


The problems is when you start trying to claim your opinion, whichever is it, is the only valid one.
The problem is when you erroneously believe that game balance is somehow a matter of opinion, which it isn't. A game can be tested and demonstrated to be objectively imbalanced, no opinions necessary. The fact that perfect play against a high-level fast-moving sword fighter results in him being unable to land a single hit, regardless of his proximity or advantage or your gear/level/ability in comparison, is objective proof of imbalance. Sorry, this is a "No Opinion Zone"; additionally, removing legitimate balanced tactics from the game without any benefit in exchange is both (1) indefensible, and (2) arbitrarily changing the balance of the game, which again, is a bad thing.

Here's a parallel example of game balance that perfectly mirrors this conversation, to help you understand how "opinions" don't factor into this discussion:

You: "I PLAY WITH A HOUSE RULE THAT SAYS - WHEN YOU TAKE A FULL-ATTACK ACTION, YOU JUST IGNORE YOUR BAB AND INSTEAD KEEP ROLLING ATTACKS UNTIL YOU MISS ONE - BUT IF YOU DONT MISS THEN YOU CAN KEEP ATTACKING FOREVER UNTIL THEY DIE!"

Me: "Well that's not balanced, and clearly isn't intended by the game mechanics. Among other things, this can result in instances where attacks keep happening forever because the opponent has some form of damage reduction that's not being overcome. Not to mention situations where any weak enemy (damage-wise) who can overcome your AC will potentially kill you without any chance of a response. This house rule puts an absurd level of importance on pumping AC, as meeting a single enemy who can overcome it by a decent margin is likely to kill you in the first round, regardless of your health or other usual mitigating factors that would balance these exchanges. This doesn't work in either direction, and any DM who does this is making their game unbalanced for no benefit whatsoever."

You: "THATS JUST YOUR OPINION SO ITS IRRELEVANT - AND ITS ONLY BECAUSE YOU CANT HANDLE THE AWESOMENESS OF MY RULES - MY RULE IS EQUALLY VALID AS RAW SO DONT DISS IT DUDE - I MEAN LIKE, ATTACKS WONT KEEP GOING UNTIL THEY KILL A PC CUZ ILL JUST MAKE A WEAK ENEMY STOP ATTACKING IF THE PLAYER IS GONNA DIE, OBVIOUSLY - LOL DUH, LEARN TO HANDLE THE RULE"

Me: "So your players are never in any danger, because all your enemies will randomly break-off their attacks if they're about to kill someone? That seems awfully arbitrar-"

You: "I SAID ITS CUZ YOU CANT HANDLE IT OKAY?? GET YOUR OPINIONS AWAY FROM ME"

Me: "But it's not an opinion, this is literally unbala-"

You: "NO ITS AN OPINION SHHHH"

Me: "...What about the specific examples, factual points, and clear reasoning that was already given to help you understand why this doesn't work in practi-"

You: "SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"

Game balance is not purely a matter of opinion, sorry. This is especially absurd in a thread about the RAW ruling.

A multitude of objective factual points have been made to explain to you some of the extreme faults in your "house rule", along with examples that illustrate why they do not work in theory or in practice. Again, there can be no way you actually "use" this ruling, because it simply doesn't work and diminishes the gameplay in the process (as multiple features and intended gameplay mechanics are excluded, by your own theory-crafting).

And again, while many many negative aspects have been listed by myself, others, and even by yourself (not least of which is the reduction to depth of combat which you yourself advocated), not a single positive aspect has been mentioned at anytime by anyone. I'm not sure why you keep glossing over this fact, aside from the fact you don't have an answer. You apparently have no reason to defend this flawed position except for the fact that it's "yours".


I believe your opinions on the subject matter are pretty much irrelevant when compared to mine.
Luckily, the RAW isn't my opinion, and neither is the fact that your incorrect ruling is absurd (if we're defining absurd as "does not comply to the rules of game balance").

Also, if you consider anything resembling a differing viewpoint to be "irrelevant" compared to your own, then a discussion forum probably isn't the best environment for you, especially not if you're going to simultaneously ask the community to explain the RAW to you out of the goodness of their hearts.

The only "opinion" involved here is whether or not you personally believe that there's nothing wrong with arbitrarily imbalancing the game. If you believe that, that's your opinion, so no one can tell you you're "wrong" (although they'll likely try to explain to you the benefits of maintaining some semblance of game balance). Whether or not your house rule is balanced (e.g., "as equally valid as RAW") is not an opinion, because balance is a fairly objective condition which can be easily disproved by counterexample.


Now are you going to misquote any of this
Nah, you give me enough absurd things to quote without me needing to take anything out of context :smallsmile: Please don't be mad about the fact you said something sarcastic and rude, and I quoted it out of context to make it appear good-natured. That was my attempt at making you look better, not worse. You're certainly not making it an easy task though.

[Sacrieur]

AzraelX is right. This discussion is absurd.

The thread is full of useful information and helpful explanations about a mechanic that can be fairly confusing. By initiating and then perpetuating this pointless off-topic argument, you're making the thread content increasingly irrelevant. This makes it increasingly unhelpful to the vast majority of people. Most people don't want a homebrewed solution. They want to understand the rules.

Your thread could actually be a helpful resource for other confused players and DMs if you would just stop filling it with meaningless irrelevant arguing. Please think of the community.

[Boci]

Okay, at this point (or more likely several posts/pages ago) I don't feel that debating with AzraelX and Sacrieur any further will be productive. As I believe is in line with forum etiquette I will make some final points on the nation of such discussions, then you may have the last word if you wish.

I am going to test this houserule in my games, probably with the 50% mischance compromise I mentioned to OldTrees1. Worst case scenario, you are right, its absurd and terrible, and I'll stop using it. That doesn't seem like a terrible outcome to me.


Yes, there is. Your original question:

This is not "what house rules do you use in this situation". It's clearly asking how it works by RAW.

Thus there is a right answer, and you've long-since been given it. Randomly bringing up house rules is, again, highly irrelevant to this thread.

You right that this was initially a RAW question, but your belief that:

"Is this RAW? No? Okay. Would it be a valid houserule?"

isn't a valid direction for a thread to go is questionable at best and to me at least a little baffling.


Nah, you give me enough absurd things to quote without me needing to take anything out of context :smallsmile: Please don't be mad about the fact you said something sarcastic and rude, and I quoted it out of context to make it appear good-natured.

Which would be a pretty good justification, had quoting "well done, I guess?" as "well done", been the first time you did this, but it wasn't. You fiddled "Once again: don't like this use of readied actions, don't use the house rule" which was neither sarcastic, nor rude, into "don't use this house rule". My follow was certainly sarcastic, mainly because I had no idea how to really respond, as I've never seen a poster do that before and was taken about as to whether this was a joke, a reference, or actually thought it was clever.


You: "I PLAY WITH A HOUSE RULE THAT SAYS - WHEN YOU TAKE A FULL-ATTACK ACTION, YOU JUST IGNORE YOUR BAB AND INSTEAD KEEP ROLLING ATTACKS UNTIL YOU MISS ONE - BUT IF YOU DONT MISS THEN YOU CAN KEEP ATTACKING FOREVER UNTIL THEY DIE!"

Me: "Well that's not balanced, and clearly isn't intended by the game mechanics. Among other things, this can result in instances where attacks keep happening forever because the opponent has some form of damage reduction that's not being overcome. Not to mention situations where any weak enemy (damage-wise) who can overcome your AC will potentially kill you without any chance of a response. This house rule puts an absurd level of importance on pumping AC, as meeting a single enemy who can overcome it by a decent margin is likely to kill you in the first round, regardless of your health or other usual mitigating factors that would balance these exchanges. This doesn't work in either direction, and any DM who does this is making their game unbalanced for no benefit whatsoever."

This to me shows that you do not understand the rules nearly as much as you think it does.
1. In a high powered game, this could be a good rule. Casters are still gona blow martial out of the water, and they tend to not care about modifications to the full attack mechanic.
2. Whilst the rule places more importance on AC, it also places an importance on miss chances, and other ways to negates attacks, likes wings of cover. Basically it turns the game into rocket tag (if the DM uses monsters that full attack, which they may not, in which case only martial is buffed, hardly a bad thing in a lot of game) which some groups like.
3. Objecting based on a scenario of damage reduction completely negating an attack is a little silly, as that's a very rare incident, and even if it did ever occur, just stop attacking, since you would have eventually missed anyway.
4. This also isn't always going to be a buff. Between haste/a speed weapon, two weapon fighting along with that elven dual scimitar PrC from Eberron, frenzy, other buffs, rapid shot, mongoose dance, time stands still and the other elven PrC from ToB, this may be a nerf to some high level melee builds, as they can skip out on 6+ attacks at full BAB if they roll poorly on their first.

So yeah, no, even when you construct an ideal example of the un-viable house rule, its potentially viable in the right game, or is problematic for reasons different to those you imagined.


The thread is full of useful information and helpful explanations about a mechanic that can be fairly confusing. By initiating and then perpetuating this pointless off-topic argument, you're making the thread content increasingly irrelevant. This makes it increasingly unhelpful to the vast majority of people. Most people don't want a homebrewed solution. They want to understand the rules.

Your thread could actually be a helpful resource for other confused players and DMs if you would just stop filling it with meaningless irrelevant arguing. Please think of the community.

I am thinking of the community. Specifically I am thinking they are smart enough to tell the difference between what has been RAW and what has been my houserule, since precisely 0 people by my count have so far confused the latter for the former.

[AzraelX]

Your thread could actually be a helpful resource for other confused players and DMs if you would just stop filling it with meaningless irrelevant arguing. Please think of the community.
Good point. I naturally have rebuttals for the points made in the previous post, but rather than continuing the argument by correcting false assumptions and faulty theory-crafting, I'm just going to leave it at that.

@OP, I hope your playtesting turns out well for you, as it seems you're already heavily invested in your idea. If your table likes pure roleplaying more than rules-based gameplay, I'm sure you can make it work. Good luck.

[Droopy McCool]

Here's a parallel example of game balance that perfectly mirrors this conversation, to help you understand how "opinions" don't factor into this discussion:

You: "I PLAY WITH A HOUSE RULE THAT SAYS - WHEN YOU TAKE A FULL-ATTACK ACTION, YOU JUST IGNORE YOUR BAB AND INSTEAD KEEP ROLLING ATTACKS UNTIL YOU MISS ONE - BUT IF YOU DONT MISS THEN YOU CAN KEEP ATTACKING FOREVER UNTIL THEY DIE!"

Me: "Well that's not balanced, and clearly isn't intended by the game mechanics. Among other things, this can result in instances where attacks keep happening forever because the opponent has some form of damage reduction that's not being overcome. Not to mention situations where any weak enemy (damage-wise) who can overcome your AC will potentially kill you without any chance of a response. This house rule puts an absurd level of importance on pumping AC, as meeting a single enemy who can overcome it by a decent margin is likely to kill you in the first round, regardless of your health or other usual mitigating factors that would balance these exchanges. This doesn't work in either direction, and any DM who does this is making their game unbalanced for no benefit whatsoever."

You: "THATS JUST YOUR OPINION SO ITS IRRELEVANT - AND ITS ONLY BECAUSE YOU CANT HANDLE THE AWESOMENESS OF MY RULES - MY RULE IS EQUALLY VALID AS RAW SO DONT DISS IT DUDE - I MEAN LIKE, ATTACKS WONT KEEP GOING UNTIL THEY KILL A PC CUZ ILL JUST MAKE A WEAK ENEMY STOP ATTACKING IF THE PLAYER IS GONNA DIE, OBVIOUSLY - LOL DUH, LEARN TO HANDLE THE RULE"

Me: "So your players are never in any danger, because all your enemies will randomly break-off their attacks if they're about to kill someone? That seems awfully arbitrar-"

You: "I SAID ITS CUZ YOU CANT HANDLE IT OKAY?? GET YOUR OPINIONS AWAY FROM ME"

Me: "But it's not an opinion, this is literally unbala-"

You: "NO ITS AN OPINION SHHHH"

Me: "...What about the specific examples, factual points, and clear reasoning that was already given to help you understand why this doesn't work in practi-"

You: "SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"

Game balance is not purely a matter of opinion, sorry. This is especially absurd in a thread about the RAW ruling.

I hope you don't mind, AzraelX, but I simply must sig this.

[AzraelX]

I hope you don't mind, AzraelX, but I simply must sig this.
Not at all :smallsmile: And feel free to reduce it as you see fit.

[Droopy McCool]

Sigged.

McCool

[Boci]

Okay so seeing this thread on the front page made me interested in our final disagreement with AzraelX, because whilst he's not wrong about the sentiment, I do think his opinion on what would break the game is wrong, so I made this thread.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?471591-quot-Avalanche-of-blades-quot-eque-full-attacks