Use the Ready Action. [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

JohnDoe

2016-01-22, 09:59 AM

Zejety

2016-01-22, 10:05 AM

Readying, even if used for moving, is still a ("standard") action. So if you ready to move every turn, you are not contributing to the fight at all.
This is not saying that readying actions isn't good (hint: it is).

Mcdt2

2016-01-22, 10:05 AM

Well, for one, that uses up your action, which could have instead been used to try and deal with the threat in the first place.

Second, a lot of encounters have mixed melee and ranged/caster enemies, and if you word your ready action to oppose one of them you leave yourself open to the other.

Rhaegar

2016-01-22, 10:07 AM

I suppose it can depend on your class, but in both of your examples I would think you'd be better off taking an attack action, or casting a spell vs readying movement. It's an either/or situation, you can't both attack and ready movement.

eastmabl

2016-01-22, 10:07 AM

Ready is an action, regardless of what you're using as your reaction. If you ready movement, you're forgoing your attack.

It doesn't make it bad, but it's not "win button" good.

RickAllison

2016-01-22, 10:08 AM

It's better suited to tactical choices, like holding fire until a spellcaster puts a debuff on an enemy. Readying for movement is usually only worth it if there is some trap or door that you are all going to rush for at once.

Corran

2016-01-22, 10:11 AM

Maybe I missed sth, but to ready sth takes up your action, so you cannot both ready to move away and attack in the same round.

JohnDoe

2016-01-22, 01:00 PM

I feel as though part of the reason people don't ready actions as often as they should, is because they don't understand how it functions. One mistake I see people making so often, is delaying their turn.

There is no delaying your turn in 5e.

If you want to move through a doorway, in order, as a coordinated group --- you can't. It's perhaps the greatest problem in 5e.

You might be lined up to enter 12345
...But your initiative order is 35241

The characters end up having to climb over one another, or not be able to move at all, and wasting the turn and missing the entire round.
________________________________

Right now we're using the Ready Action RAW, but we've seriously gotten to the point where we're ready to house rule a Delay Action.

Icewraith

2016-01-22, 01:03 PM

One mistake I see people making so often, is delaying their turn.

There is no delaying your turn in 5e.

If you want to move through a doorway, in order, as a coordinated group --- you can't. It's perhaps the greatest problem in 5e.

You might be lined up to enter 12345
...But your initiative order is 35241

The characters end up having to climb over one another, or not be able to move at all, and wasting the turn and missing the entire round.
________________________________

Right now we're using the Ready Action RAW, but we've seriously gotten to the point where we're ready to house rule a Delay Action.

Can't you still move freely through squares occupied by allies?

RickAllison

2016-01-22, 01:07 PM

Can't you still move freely through squares occupied by allies?

I thought you could, but it counted as difficult terrain.

JohnDoe

2016-01-22, 01:18 PM

I thought you could, but it counted as difficult terrain.

This

PHB
Moving Around Other Creatures:
"You can move through a nonhostile creature’s space. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you. Remember that another creature’s space is difficult terrain for you."

That's one reason why I avoid 10 foot grids. It can get messy and confusing for people.

Often times encounters that should only last a couple of turns, end up taking longer, and the more characters you have, often the more enemies you have, and the map gets very bunched up and the game slows down.

That's one reason why I actually prefer smaller groups in 5e.

Tanarii

2016-01-22, 01:27 PM

If you want to move through a doorway, in order, as a coordinated group --- you can't. It's perhaps the greatest problem in 5e.

You might be lined up to enter 12345
...But your initiative order is 35241

The characters end up having to climb over one another, or not be able to move at all, and wasting the turn and missing the entire round.Why is your DM starting combat with you lined up outside the door, as opposed to arrayed just inside the door in the battle array you'd adopted in the process of busting through it?

Douche

2016-01-22, 01:30 PM

Hey, you guys know that one OotS with the chain wielding half-troll dude? Couldn't you create that build by doing what the TC is saying, coupled with polearm master... or something like that?

JohnDoe

2016-01-22, 01:34 PM

Why is your DM starting combat with you lined up outside the door, as opposed to arrayed just inside the door in the battle array you'd adopted in the process of busting through it?

Unless you're granting a surprise round every time you enter the room, the creatures inside are going to react --- especially if there are any guards whatsoever.

That's also assuming the DM is disregarding any sense of using ambushes, choke points, etc on part of the creatures. Then any such circumstances become incredibly predictable if you know you can organize before every single encounter in an open space.

You can make 10 foot wide corridors and double doors when designing your dungeons... But then there's no way for your tank to block anything.

RickAllison

2016-01-22, 01:42 PM

Why is your DM starting combat with you lined up outside the door, as opposed to arrayed just inside the door in the battle array you'd adopted in the process of busting through it?

Because the people inside are ready. To start inside would mean everyone is in the sense of "Ready, but disarrayed", but having the occupants expecting entry means that they are ready to act as soon as the door is opened. No surprise, but the defenders have the advantage (funny, just like real life!).

Tanarii

2016-01-22, 01:49 PM

JohnDoe

2016-01-22, 01:50 PM

Because the people inside are ready. To start inside would mean everyone is in the sense of "Ready, but disarrayed", but having the occupants expecting entry means that they are ready to act as soon as the door is opened. No surprise, but the defenders have the advantage (funny, just like real life!).

Exactly. One of our players was incredibly frustrated, being an officer who has done room entries for years, entries into prison cells, etc.

It also works in reverse. We use chases and escapes a lot. ie. Being chased by a deadly creature or being swarmed.

Our fighter wanted to move to the door to get out of range on his turn, then ready the remainder of his action for when the last party member ran in, so he could follow last and hold the door shut.

...but technically he couldn't do that.

RickAllison

2016-01-22, 01:53 PM

If the enemy is ready to act before the party comes through the door, they get a suprise round. I'd assume they'll ready their actions to attack as the party comes through the door.

Barring that, combat can start when everyone is in the room just fine.

Why would they get a surprise round? If they are in a hostile environment, they probably are anticipating that an enemy is within every chamber. Now prepared actions? Totally legit. Fireball to the face if the lead members aren't fast enough :smallbiggrin:

JohnDoe

2016-01-22, 01:59 PM

Icewraith

2016-01-22, 02:26 PM

Exactly. One of our players was incredibly frustrated, being an officer who has done room entries for years, entries into prison cells, etc.

It also works in reverse. We use chases and escapes a lot. ie. Being chased by a deadly creature or being swarmed.

Our fighter wanted to move to the door to get out of range on his turn, then ready the remainder of his action for when the last party member ran in, so he could follow last and hold the door shut.

...but technically he couldn't do that.

Why not? Move to door. (Move action)
Ready action: Shut door as soon as last party member is through the door.

RickAllison

2016-01-22, 02:50 PM

We use readied actions for hostile creatures all the time. We don't consider the Fighter to be surprised when he kicks the door down with a shield. If we were going in against bandits based on rogue assassins, and declared it a surprise round, he'd get hit with a few Assissinate crits every time.

He actually has the Alert feat for good reason. Others totally ignore it.

Also shield master to push into a room as a bonus action, a few shoves, make space. Move up.

Makes the pointman-fighter a lot more interesting to play than "I hit things"

Exactly my point, thank you. Surprise is supposed to be reserved for situations where a party (PC or NPC) does not anticipate the turn to hostility, but a readied action (sorry, I used prepared in my previous post for the same thing) does not care whether someone expects it or not, it just happens. I don't like Alert and Weapons of Warning purely for the reason that I think surprise makes for more interesting scenarios, but I also don't think my DM would enforce surprise actions in situations like that and especially not with assassins, as well as for the reason that they kind of tread on the toes of people who invest heavily in Perception and also negate an entire style of play. If I played an Assassin with maxed stealth modifiers who is based around being a glass cannon and relies on surprise actions, Alert completely negates the advantages of that build. Of course, none of that applies to just entering a room at all!

JohnDoe

2016-01-22, 03:27 PM

Why not? Move to door. (Move action)
Ready action: Shut door as soon as last party member is through the door.

If he moves through the door, 2 things happen:

1. He becomes difficult terrain and party members can't end their turn on his space. Moving through him requires 15 feet of movement. That can bunch up the area very quickly.

2. His fighting style is protection. Any attack against anyone within 5 feet of him has disadvantage if he uses his reaction, If he has to resort to that instead of getting to the door that round.

If he can stand 10 feet from the door, he can cover a 3x3 grid with disadvantage on attack rolls against party members. If he's on the other side of the door, he can't.

So even if a party member reaches an adjacent square, and is still 20+ feet from making it through the door, he is providing disadvantage on any attacks against them.

MaxWilson

2016-01-22, 03:30 PM

I'm surprised by the fact that people don't Ready their movement, and use it as their reaction during the round.

"First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction.

Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it. Examples include “If the cultist steps on the trapdoor, I’ll pull the lever that opens it,” and “If the goblin steps next to me, I move away.” "

If you're a caster, or using ranged weapons, just Ready your movement.

If I'm playing a ranged character, I'll quite literally just move across our Tank's reach if a melee Creature is trying to move on me. I really don't care if I back away from a melee Creature, then attack it.

#1 They're not going to reach me if our movement speed is the same.
#2 They're going to provoke an AoO if they are faster, and insist on moving through our Tank's reach, rather than circumventing it.

If there is a ranged Creature trying to attack me... I move behind cover.

If there is ranged creature trying to position itself to attack me... I react and keep cover between us.

It's not always useful to Ready, but you've certainly made me reflect that Readying a move is as effective and an alternative to Dashing. I'll keep that in mind in case it's ever useful--especially if your table/DM rules that enemies cannot tell what action is being Readied.

-Max

1. He becomes difficult terrain and party members can't end their turn on his space. Moving through him requires 15 feet of movement. That can bunch up the area very quickly.

You mean ten feet of movement, not fifteen.

Rhaegar

2016-01-22, 03:52 PM

It's not always useful to Ready, but you've certainly made me reflect that Readying a move is as effective and an alternative to Dashing. I'll keep that in mind in case it's ever useful--especially if your table/DM rules that enemies cannot tell what action is being Readied.

-Max

I recently had a movement ready action on our table that caused a small amount of controversy. The ready action says you can ready either your movement or an action. The question then was can you ready a dash action such that you use your normal movement on your turn and ready the dash action to use that pool of movement based on specific conditions. Since you can do an action or movement, I didn't let the player ready the full move plus dash, but just the added dashed portion. Was this correct, or are you not supposed to be able to ready dash actions since it's movement and you can't move due to readying an action? This situation really made me scratch my head.

MaxWilson

2016-01-22, 04:11 PM

I recently had a movement ready action on our table that caused a small amount of controversy. The ready action says you can ready either your movement or an action. The question then was can you ready a dash action such that you use your normal movement on your turn and ready the dash action to use that pool of movement based on specific conditions. Since you can do an action or movement, I didn't let the player ready the full move plus dash, but just the added dashed portion. Was this correct, or are you not supposed to be able to ready dash actions since it's movement and you can't move due to readying an action? This situation really made me scratch my head.

A close reading of the rules would argue that you can ready a move or an action, but not necessarily both. A strict DM would say that "what is not permitted is forbidden" and say you can only ready one or the other, which means Dash's ability to increase your movement allowance is useless since you can't actually move to use that allowance.

If I'm the DM I'm going to tell you that is nonsense and that you can go ahead and ready anything you can do on your normal turn. (Yes, that includes making multiple attacks if you have Extra Attack--that is technically against RAW and RAI but I veto that, both for consistency's sake and for fun and because I don't want to make Warlocks superior to Fighters at playing ranged hide-and-seek.) So yes, I'd let you ready: "run 60' away if the enemy approaches." But then, I also use a simultaneous-resolution initiative system which would let you declare something like, "I move to keep at least 15' separation between myself and the ogre, falling back if he approaches; and if I can (i.e. I'm not busy Dashing) I also shoot him in the face with my crossbow."

Cyclic initiative is the most fun-killing thing in 5E (relative to AD&D), but fortunately 5E is officially open to initiative variants.

RickAllison

2016-01-22, 04:13 PM

You mean ten feet of movement, not fifteen.

I think it was fifteen because you need ten feet to get through their space, but you need another five feet to make it to the space beyond.

Iolo Morganwg

2016-01-22, 04:26 PM

...*(Yes, that includes making multiple attacks if you have Extra Attack--that is technically against RAW and RAI...

Can you point out to me some supporting evidence for this claim? Maybe my reading of the rules is off, but Extra Attack on a readied action looks RAW to me.

Iguanodon

2016-01-22, 04:28 PM

Hey, you guys know that one OotS with the chain wielding half-troll dude? Couldn't you create that build by doing what the TC is saying, coupled with polearm master... or something like that?

No, because taking a readied action uses up your reaction, which you would need to be able to attack with Sentinel.

jkat718

2016-01-22, 04:54 PM

Can you point out to me some supporting evidence for this claim? Maybe my reading of the rules is off, but Extra Attack on a readied action looks RAW to me.

The exact text of Extra Attack is as follows:
"Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." Note the on your turn bit, which does not include Readied Actions (which could, theoretically, take place on your turn, but only if the trigger somehow happens on your turn, which defeats the point of the Ready action).

Iolo Morganwg

2016-01-22, 05:22 PM

The exact text of Extra Attack is as follows:
"Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."...

Thank you. If you look only at that, I'd say it is cut and dry, but looking at the sections for ready, attack, and reaction, Extra Attack as a reaction seems permissible. AFAIK, multi-attack can happen as a readied action.

From the "Ready" section on p. 193, you decide the trigger, then "...choose the action..." You can choose any action.

Under the "Attack" section on p. 192, says that Attack is an action, and it clarifies that Extra Attack is part of the action.

The "Reactions" section on p.190 says nothing to contradict this.

Trigger: Mog steps within 5' of me.
Action: Attack. Per attack section, Extra Attack is part of an action.
Reaction: Trigger goes off, and I resolve my action, in this case swinging 1-4 times.

Has there been any errata or sage advice covering this topic?

coredump

2016-01-22, 05:42 PM

Extra attack is only part of the attack action if it is YourTurn.

It is pretty explicit..... Extra attack explicitly states it only applies on your turn.....

Tanarii

2016-01-22, 06:02 PM

Why would they get a surprise round? If they are in a hostile environment, they probably are anticipating that an enemy is within every chamber. Now prepared actions? Totally legit. Fireball to the face if the lead members aren't fast enough :smallbiggrin:

We use readied actions for hostile creatures all the time. We don't consider the Fighter to be surprised when he kicks the door down with a shield. If we were going in against bandits based on rogue assassins, and declared it a surprise round, he'd get hit with a few Assissinate crits every time.

Why not? Move to door. (Move action)
Ready action: Shut door as soon as last party member is through the door.

Exactly my point, thank you. Surprise is supposed to be reserved for situations where a party (PC or NPC) does not anticipate the turn to hostility, but a readied action (sorry, I used prepared in my previous post for the same thing) does not care whether someone expects it or not, it just happens. I don't like Alert and Weapons of Warning purely for the reason that I think surprise makes for more interesting scenarios, but I also don't think my DM would enforce surprise actions in situations like that and especially not with assassins, as well as for the reason that they kind of tread on the toes of people who invest heavily in Perception and also negate an entire style of play. If I played an Assassin with maxed stealth modifiers who is based around being a glass cannon and relies on surprise actions, Alert completely negates the advantages of that build. Of course, none of that applies to just entering a room at all!

If he moves through the door, 2 things happen:

1. He becomes difficult terrain and party members can't end their turn on his space. Moving through him requires 15 feet of movement. That can bunch up the area very quickly.

2. His fighting style is protection. Any attack against anyone within 5 feet of him has disadvantage if he uses his reaction, If he has to resort to that instead of getting to the door that round.

If he can stand 10 feet from the door, he can cover a 3x3 grid with disadvantage on attack rolls against party members. If he's on the other side of the door, he can't.

So even if a party member reaches an adjacent square, and is still 20+ feet from making it through the door, he is providing disadvantage on any attacks against them.

Everything here can be resolved by the simple expedient of starting any battle that doesn't involve the party being suprised with the party arrayed in battle formation that they would have come through the door, just inside the doorway. If the party has surprise, start the combat from there with their surprise round as usual. If they don't, go per normal initiative.

If the party is surprised, assume the enemy has used their surprise round to ready actions to attack the first person to come through the door (ranged attacks) or approach them (melee), then proceed starting with the party passing through the door in battle formation order.

This not only makes start of combat easy and flow logically in these situations, it prevents all sorts of player attempts to game the initiative and cover rules for an advantage. The 'enemy on the other side of a closed door' is one of the most common places for them to try doing that.

JohnDoe

2016-01-22, 06:14 PM

Extra attack is only part of the attack action if it is YourTurn.

It is pretty explicit..... Extra attack explicitly states it only applies on your turn.....

This is just another reason I'm not a fan of RAW when it comes to the Ready Action, and not being able to delay your turn.

I highly doubt this is RAI, as I believe it is intended to be limited to an Action or Movement...

********But Dash is an Action********

Why would you choose to Move, rather than use the Dash action?
_________________________

I've considered allowing Ready to simply Delay your Turn, as your Reaction.

I think that would be pretty clear cut.

-------- The only exception would be reacting to a hostile creature.

Either:
A. You make one Action as a reaction to a hostile creature.
(Which includes Dash, which makes movement redundant)

Or

B. You Move, or Make an Action as a reaction to a hostile creature.

The creature resolves it's turn.

Then you resolve the remainder of your Turn.

E’Tallitnics

2016-01-22, 06:33 PM

This is just another reason I'm not a fan of RAW when it comes to the Ready Action, and not being able to delay your turn.

I highly doubt this is RAI, as I believe it is intended to be limited to an Action or Movement...

********But Dash is an Action********

Why would you choose to Move, rather than use the Dash action?
_________________________

I've considered allowing Ready to simply Delay your Turn, as your Reaction.

I think that would be pretty clear cut.

-------- The only exception would be reacting to a hostile creature.

Either:
A. You make one Action as a reaction to a hostile creature.
(Which includes Dash, which makes movement redundant)

Or

B. You Move, or Make an Action as a reaction to a hostile creature.

The creature resolves it's turn.

Then you resolve the remainder of your Turn.

Not only is it RAW, but it's also clearly RAI.

The Monster Manual also defines "Multiattack" (an additional action a creature can take) as "on its turn".

However "Your Table, Your Rules"...

Tanarii

2016-01-22, 06:56 PM

********But Dash is an Action********

Why would you choose to Move, rather than use the Dash action?You don't move as part of the Dash action. It just increases your movement on your turn. There's no point in Readying the Dash action.

JohnDoe

2016-01-22, 07:33 PM

Not only is it RAW, but it's also clearly RAI.

The Monster Manual also defines "Multiattack" (an additional action a creature can take) as "on its turn".

However "Your Table, Your Rules"...

The exact text of Extra Attack is as follows:
"Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." Note the on your turn bit, which does not include Readied Actions (which could, theoretically, take place on your turn, but only if the trigger somehow happens on your turn, which defeats the point of the Ready action).

The Attack Action explicitly states Extra Attacks are included in the Action...

Multiattack is an Action, in the actions section page 10-11...

An Attack of Opportunity is a single melee attack. It explicitly emphasizes the difference between an Action and a single Melee Attack.

Attack
The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.
With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules that govern attacks.
Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.

You don't move as part of the Dash action. It just increases your movement on your turn. There's no point in Readying the Dash action.

Then dash / disengage etc become redundant actions. That's my point.

They could be defined for consistency, perhaps allowing move to be used again in place of your action (instead of dash), or the old 5 foot step being an action, rather than disengage being dependent on movement, rather than independent actions.

REVISIONIST

2016-01-22, 08:07 PM

MaxWilson

2016-01-22, 08:16 PM

Thank you. If you look only at that, I'd say it is cut and dry, but looking at the sections for ready, attack, and reaction, Extra Attack as a reaction seems permissible. AFAIK, multi-attack can happen as a readied action.

From the "Ready" section on p. 193, you decide the trigger, then "...choose the action..." You can choose any action.

Under the "Attack" section on p. 192, says that Attack is an action, and it clarifies that Extra Attack is part of the action.

The "Reactions" section on p.190 says nothing to contradict this.

Trigger: Mog steps within 5' of me.
Action: Attack. Per attack section, Extra Attack is part of an action.
Reaction: Trigger goes off, and I resolve my action, in this case swinging 1-4 times.

Has there been any errata or sage advice covering this topic?

Not that I know of--but personally, I don't care, because no matter what Crawford says I'm going to veto and allow the Extra Attack to be readied.

My table, my rules.

JohnDoe

2016-01-22, 08:20 PM

Do you think Dash and Disengage would be better served as being part or tied into the move part of your turn? That does kind of make sense if it somehow depletes some other part of your action phase on your turn. but it might be hard to balance.

Either you'd make them part of movement, or independ actions. I think they would be better served as independent actions separate from movement.

Thinking on the spot, it wouldn't be hard to rewrite them as independent actions. As it stands they're tied to movement, and not exactly independent actions.
_______________________________
So to make them useable as standalone actions:

Dash: Literally move as your action (essentially move twice on your turn)

Disengage: The old 5 foot step, which is an independent action, separate from movement.
_______________________________

Then your "Ready Action" would only be an Action, and include all Actions listed.

That's how I would write them if I were to program them. Then you have to consider when you would ready disengage, if you could ready move when they're 10 feet away.

****************
The alternative would be coming up with an entirely different system where your actions use up movement.

For example:
"Movement" is 30 feet

Then

Dash is 30 feet
Disengage is 30 feet
An Attack takes up 30 feet of movement, and "extra attack" would be reducing that to 15 feet of movement, or 10 feet of movement, etc.

For 4 attacks youd merely have to make base speed 40 feet. A full dash would be 80 feet in 6 seconds, which isn't very fast realistically considering a 40 yard dash is 120 feet in well under 6 seconds.

Then of course you'd have people using up their 40 feet of movement to make 4 more attacks, so you'd be inclined to make attacks more costly.

Then "speed" becomes a core mechanic in the entire game. So there would be a lot of game design going on. Not something to just come up with off the top of your head.

bid

2016-01-23, 01:29 AM

The Attack Action explicitly states Extra Attacks are included in the Action...
Fine, you ready an Attack action.
The trigger occurs and you take your reaction.
You do your attack action with the extra attack feature.
Did you "take the Attack action on your turn"?
No.
Extra attack does nothing since its conditions are not met.
You "make one melee or ranged attack."

bid

2016-01-23, 01:41 AM

Then dash / disengage etc become redundant actions.
- dash: your speed is increased to 60'
- disengage: your speed stays at 30', but you don't provoke OA while moving.
Not the same at all.

If you want to ready a "dash", just move your full distance then ready a move.

pwykersotz

2016-01-23, 02:20 AM

Cyclic initiative is the most fun-killing thing in 5E (relative to AD&D), but fortunately 5E is officially open to initiative variants.

Amen to this. I could never really implement my ideas when I played 3.5, but when I picked up 5th it was goodbye to cyclic initiative.

Zalabim

2016-01-23, 07:15 AM

When you take the Ready action on your turn, you can still use up your movement on your turn. If you Ready to move, that movement is separate from the movement you're allowed on your turn. It effectively is readying the dash action. I'm not too concerned about Readying to Disengage doing nothing in this case.

Move speed itself isn't very similar to a 40 yard dash, since it allows sharp turns, jumps and acrobatics, attacks or other actions, and even instantly reversing direction as part of your movement.

JohnDoe

2016-01-23, 08:33 AM

Fine, you ready an Attack action.
The trigger occurs and you take your reaction.
You do your attack action with the extra attack feature.
Did you "take the Attack action on your turn"?
No.
Extra attack does nothing since its conditions are not met.
You "make one melee or ranged attack."

I'm assuming you're trolling at this point.

The Attack Action explicitly ***allows*** you to make more than one melee attack with this Action, with certain features... explicitly the Extra Attack feature.

- dash: your speed is increased to 60'
- disengage: your speed stays at 30', but you don't provoke OA while moving.
Not the same at all.

If you want to ready a "dash", just move your full distance then ready a move.

That's not what I was saying at all.

Tanarii

2016-01-23, 09:22 AM

That's how I would write them if I were to program them.
That you're a programmer explains a lot. 5e is not a game written for programmers. 3e was, to a degree, and 4e was too. But this edition was intentionally rolled back from object-oriented rules, so to speak. That's why you're having problems with it.

You're going to struggle with the 5e rules so long as you keep thinking about them as how you would write them if you were to program them. Either learn to stop thinking about the rules that way (almost impossible for programmers :smallwink: ), change to a rule-set that is written as if they were to be programmed (I recommend 4e), or sit down and write a crap ton of house-rules for your game.

Skylivedk

2016-01-23, 11:43 AM

The rather big issue here is that the way the turn system currently works, a round seems to consist of many 6-second turns instead of everybody taking their turn at the same time. This leads to the current "Ready Action" sometimes punishing those with higher initiative which makes almost no sense either. I'm with Max Wilson on this one... And luckily so is my table (even before we've talked about it :) ). We've essentially allowed you to delay your turn with certain parameters; i.e.: if the gnolls charge forward, Tarik will run to intercept and attack the frontrunner with all of his attacks".

It works like a charm.

bid

2016-01-23, 01:15 PM

I'm assuming you're trolling at this point.

The Attack Action explicitly ***allows*** you to make more than one melee attack with this Action, with certain features... explicitly the Extra Attack feature.
You are right it does. "on your turn"

As a programmer, you certainly know of the "if" statement and how calling an "extra_attack()" function might have no impact.

And don't call people names because they have a strong argument against your interpretation. As a programmer again, you should appreciate a logical step-through of the process.

bid

2016-01-23, 01:23 PM

That's not what I was saying at all.
Oh, you meant dash and disengage are pointless to ready. Yes, you are right here, sorry.

coredump

2016-01-23, 01:43 PM

Amen to this. I could never really implement my ideas when I played 3.5, but when I picked up 5th it was goodbye to cyclic initiative.

What do you do instead....??

Desamir

2016-01-23, 01:45 PM

Here's the official word on readying and Extra Attack: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557812617369378816

coredump

2016-01-23, 01:48 PM

I'm assuming you're trolling at this point.

The Attack Action explicitly ***allows*** you to make more than one melee attack with this Action, with certain features... explicitly the Extra Attack feature.

I'm assuming you're trolling at this point.

The Extra Attack feature explicitly allows you to make more than one melee attack with the Attack Action **on your turn**..... explicitly the Extra Attack feature restricts it to your turn.

Hey, lets make it overly blatant:

PHB: "Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."

Iolo Morganwg

2016-01-23, 02:01 PM

Here's the official word on readying and Extra Attack: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557812617369378816

Well, that's pretty clear. Not what I expected though; makes the Ready action more advantageous for spell slingers than axe swingers.

Desamir

2016-01-23, 02:53 PM

Well, that's pretty clear. Not what I expected though; makes the Ready action more advantageous for spell slingers than axe swingers.

Readying a non-cantrip spell is tricky. You spend the spell slot right away, whether or not the trigger occurs. It requires concentration, which not only ends whatever spell you're currently concentrating on, but also provides a risk that it'll get broken and waste the spell slot.

Rogues, on the other hand, lose nothing from readying an attack except their reaction (which is actually pretty valuable for Uncanny Dodge).

As I always say when I link a Jeremy Crawford ruling--feel free to ignore it. JC is often off-base with his rulings and there's no reason to follow them if you believe they'll actively harm your game.

Iolo Morganwg

2016-01-23, 04:29 PM

Not only is it RAW, but it's also clearly RAI.

The Monster Manual also defines "Multiattack" (an additional action a creature can take) as "on its turn".

However "Your Table, Your Rules"...

Readying a non-cantrip spell is tricky. You spend the spell slot right away, whether or not the trigger occurs. It requires concentration, which not only ends whatever spell you're currently concentrating on, but also provides a risk that it'll get broken and waste the spell slot.

Rogues, on the other hand, lose nothing from readying an attack except their reaction (which is actually pretty valuable for Uncanny Dodge).

As I always say when I link a Jeremy Crawford ruling--feel free to ignore it. JC is often off-base with his rulings and there's no reason to follow them if you believe they'll actively harm your game.

Good points on the limits of concentration Desamir. I had overlooked that.

JohnDoe

2016-01-23, 06:22 PM

Here's the official word on readying and Extra Attack: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/557812617369378816

Well that makes ready an action absolutely useless when there are already so many ways to make a melee attack as a reaction...

While also having making an entire round of action.

4d10 Cantrips and level 5 spells for the win

Desamir

2016-01-23, 09:06 PM

Well that makes ready an action absolutely useless when there are already so many ways to make a melee attack as a reaction...

While also having making an entire round of action.

4d10 Cantrips and level 5 spells for the win

Readying a spell has equally harsh downsides. You lose whatever you were concentrating on, and if your concentration gets broken (or you miss the trigger) you waste the spell slot.

E’Tallitnics

2016-01-23, 09:30 PM

Readying a spell has equally harsh downsides. You lose whatever you were concentrating on, and if your concentration gets broken (or you miss the trigger) you waste the spell slot.

With the errata even harsher since it dissipates at the start of your next turn. I allow a caster to keep the spell at Ready if they want to, but it's the same Action+Reaction costs as the initial Ready.

That's a very steep price to pay in the action economy so I feel it's a good trade off.

JohnDoe

2016-01-24, 09:40 AM

Readying a spell has equally harsh downsides. You lose whatever you were concentrating on, and if your concentration gets broken (or you miss the trigger) you waste the spell slot.

That's not my point. My point is it's very likely an oversight and has very little to do with balance.

__________________________

Virtually EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of
"On Your Turn"

Doesn't refer to Actions, and wouldn't interfere with Ready in any way whatsoever.

They refer to:
1. ***Bonus Actions***
(99% of the time)

2. Using Ki, Superiority Die, or Spell Slot abilities.
(Ki Spells, Maneuvers, etc)

3. Commanding a Beast to Move.
(Not an Action, wouldn't apply to Ready)

4. Ending Sacred Weapon.
(Not an Action, wouldn't apply to Ready)

_________________________________

In fact, these are all totally consistent with the Ready Action being limited to an Action, or Move.

So far the entire Player's handbook is consistent. With the exceptions of:

_________________________________

1. Extra Attack
Part of the Attack Action
---- if it weren't part of the Attack Action, it would simply not be included in the Action's definition.

2. Unarmored Movement -- walking on water / vertical surfaces.
Part of Movement

"On your turn" is mechanically consistent everywhere else in the action economy.

Why is it imperative to game balance to prevent a Monk from walking on water during his readied move..?

Then Extra Attack, which is explicitly integrated into the definitition of the Attack Action...?

________________________
By the way, Jeremy Crawford himself mentions Delay from time to time.

There is no Delay in 5e. That would be a great solution, but there's no Delay in 5e.

bid

2016-01-24, 04:05 PM

That's not my point. My point is it's very likely an oversight and has very little to do with balance.
This is excessively hard to argue. The extra attack text does not need "on your turn" at all to work. If it was put there it must be to disable it in some cases.

Maybe is was for OA and they rewrote it to "one melee attack", but this is iffy.

Maybe they initially meant a single attack on readied, but reversed this for a full attack without fixing the extra attack text. What matches your belief.

Maybe it was always single attack, but someone felt the attack action wasn't clear enough and players would forget extra attack. There never was a thought about ready action when the text was clarified. That's the most likely oversight since JC calls it RAI.

georgie_leech

2016-01-24, 04:09 PM

Why is it imperative to game balance to prevent a Monk from walking on water during his readied move..?

How would you word it so that forced movement doesn't result in Monks skidding along walls and water?

Talakeal

2016-01-24, 04:24 PM

How would you word it so that forced movement doesn't result in Monks skidding along walls and water?

Clarifying the initial ability to only apply to voluntary movement would probably work.

coredump

2016-01-24, 06:15 PM

As I always say when I link a Jeremy Crawford ruling--feel free to ignore it. JC is often off-base with his rulings and there's no reason to follow them if you believe they'll actively harm your game.

I call BS. I hope everyone feels free to play the game by whatever rules they want. But to say JC is "often off-base" is just plainly Bull.

coredump

2016-01-24, 06:22 PM

Desamir

2016-01-24, 06:23 PM

I call BS. I hope everyone feels free to play the game by whatever rules they want. But to say JC is "often off-base" is just plainly Bull.

According to Jeremy Crawford:

Cutting Words cancels natural 20s (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/01/06/can-i-cancel-a-20-with-cutting-words/) (and by association, Bardic Inspiration, Bless, and Bane all affect your crit chance).
A druid/monk shifted into a shark has up to a 25 foot walking speed on land (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/26/monkdruid-unarmored-movement/).
Devil's Sight doesn't work in dim light (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/18/devils-sight-vision/).
Lucky turns disadvantage into superadvantage (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_feats), so it's best to close your eyes while using it.

I don't play with any of these.

JohnDoe

2016-01-24, 06:47 PM

Grapple and Shove are also only allowed on your turn.

This is not an 'oversight'. This has all been confirmed by the Devs. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it was "obviously a mistake"

It's not necessarily that I don't like it, it's that it's not described in Ready Action ---- if it really is for Ready Action, just like the Spellcasting detriment. We could just as easily have stated that all readied actions require concentration, and elminated the wasted spell slot.

They're not the best 1 to 1 trade offs in terms of balance.

It's confusing because it doesn't fit into the Action Economy. If they wanted to, they could easily have stated that you can make one attack with the Attack Action, just like the Spellcasting balance.

They could have removed OYT from Extra Attack and simply stated the detriment under Ready.

Even Shove/Grapple are easy to clarify with 'Melee Weapon Attack' rather than Melee Attack.

___________________
Edit:

Just talked to Mike.

It's officially to balance the detriment to Spellcasting in the Ready Action.

So yes, that might be how OYT fits into the action economy, but extra attack seems to be a detriment in the Ready Action.

It probably would have been best to remove OYT from Extra Attack when using the Attack Action, and explained the limitation in the Ready Attack description.

Props to Mike for following up RaW in Extra Attack, with the unwritten application in Ready.
___________________

I'm still not a big fan of the Ready Action or the removal of Delay.

Tanarii

2016-01-24, 10:40 PM

According to Jeremy Crawford:

Cutting Words cancels natural 20s (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/01/06/can-i-cancel-a-20-with-cutting-words/) (and by association, Bardic Inspiration, Bless, and Bane all affect your crit chance).
A druid/monk shifted into a shark has up to a 25 foot walking speed on land (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/26/monkdruid-unarmored-movement/).
Devil's Sight doesn't work in dim light (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/18/devils-sight-vision/).
Lucky turns disadvantage into superadvantage (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_feats), so it's best to close your eyes while using it.

I don't play with any of these.Only one of those that's off base is the Cutting Words, because I can't see a reading of the rule that should result in that ruling. The 25ft land speed is just your misrepresentation of his answer. Devils sight is literally RAW so if you don't use it that's your house rule. And super advantage is silly way to do it IMO, but it's also a literal reading of the rule.

JC is pretty damn solid as Sage Advice. He's a breath of fresh air after some of the previous folks who have done the job, who just made up rules that plainly contradicted what was written on a regular basis. JC rarely does that. Saying he's often off base, and especially then giving examples where his ruling matches what is written which is his job when there's no ambiguity, is a gross misrepresentation.

Desamir

2016-01-25, 12:58 AM

Only one of those that's off base is the Cutting Words, because I can't see a reading of the rule that should result in that ruling. The 25ft land speed is just your misrepresentation of his answer. Devils sight is literally RAW so if you don't use it that's your house rule. And super advantage is silly way to do it IMO, but it's also a literal reading of the rule.

JC is pretty damn solid as Sage Advice. He's a breath of fresh air after some of the previous folks who have done the job, who just made up rules that plainly contradicted what was written on a regular basis. JC rarely does that. Saying he's often off base, and especially then giving examples where his ruling matches what is written which is his job when there's no ambiguity, is a gross misrepresentation.

JC at times doubles down on RAW when it's silly or unintuitive (Devil's Sight and Lucky) and at other times interprets RAW in silly or unintuitive ways (Cutting Words). When there is ambiguity, he sometimes chooses the interpretation that creates major balance issues (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/03/16/spirit-guardian/). He's not shy about providing the intent when it contradicts the RAW (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/13/great-weapon-fighting-rerolling-smite-hex-and-hunters-mark/), so in the previous examples, he is implicitly endorsing those interpretations. I don't think it's out of line to say that one should take his rulings with a grain of salt.

Tanarii

2016-01-25, 02:01 AM

JC at times doubles down on RAW when it's silly or unintuitive (Devil's Sight and Lucky) and at other times interprets RAW in silly or unintuitive ways (Cutting Words). When there is ambiguity, he sometimes chooses the interpretation that creates major balance issues (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/03/16/spirit-guardian/). He's not shy about providing the intent when it contradicts the RAW (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/13/great-weapon-fighting-rerolling-smite-hex-and-hunters-mark/), so in the previous examples, he is implicitly endorsing those interpretations. I don't think it's out of line to say that one should take his rulings with a grain of salt.
Everything should be taking with a grain of salt. But he puts thought into the difference between RAW, RAI, and even (in your link on spirit guardians) explains his line of thinking, such as the difference between potential major balance issues and actual ones.

Like I said, a major breath of fresh air. JC knows what his job is, and tries to do it, and generally does a good job. Sure beats someone who's idea of sage advice was creating house rules out of the whole cloth, like his predecessor did.

Zalabim

2016-01-25, 03:46 AM

Cutting Words, unlike Bardic Inspiration, Bane, and Bless, does not subtract the result from(or add the result to) an Attack Roll, Saving Throw, or Ability Check. It subtracts the result from the creature's roll.

Bardic Inspiration: Once within the next 10 minutes, the creature can roll the die and add the number rolled to one ability check, attack roll, or saving throw it makes.

Bane: Whenever a target that fails this saving throw makes an attack roll or a saving throw before the spell ends, the target must roll a d4 and subtract the number rolled from the attack roll or saving throw.

Bless: Whenever a target makes an attack roll or a saving throw before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to the attack roll or saving throw.

Cutting Words: When a creature that you can see within 60 feet of you makes an attack roll, an ability check, or a damage roll, you can use your reaction to expend one of your uses of Bardic Inspiration, rolling a Bardic Inspiration die and subtracting the number rolled from the creature's roll.

Not actually an off-base ruling.

Occasional Sage

2016-01-25, 04:38 AM

If he moves through the door, 2 things happen:

1. He becomes difficult terrain and party members can't end their turn on his space. Moving through him requires 15 feet of movement. That can bunch up the area very quickly.

2. His fighting style is protection. Any attack against anyone within 5 feet of him has disadvantage if he uses his reaction, If he has to resort to that instead of getting to the door that round.

If he can stand 10 feet from the door, he can cover a 3x3 grid with disadvantage on attack rolls against party members. If he's on the other side of the door, he can't.

So even if a party member reaches an adjacent square, and is still 20+ feet from making it through the door, he is providing disadvantage on any attacks against them.

Why not Ready to Move through, and Interact freely in the process to close the door?

JohnDoe

2016-01-25, 07:16 AM

For those still talking about JC, I talked to Mike Mearls, he confirmed the "On Your Turn" language is to balance Attack with Spellcasting during the Ready Action

Even though it probably would have been easier to just list that restriction in the Ready Action description.

Rather than:
1. Defining the Attack Action as allowing multiple attacks to be made if someone has the Extra Attack Feature, when they use the Attack Action
2. Indirectly listing the Balancing mechanic of Ready into the "On Your Turn" language of Extra Attack.

Since Opportunity Attacks, and all other reactions to my recollection, explicitly mention "one melee attack" rather than using the Attack Action.

They could have removed "On Your Turn" from Extra Attack and explicitly stated the restriction under Ready, to make the handbook less cryptic.

Why not Ready to Move through, and Interact freely in the process to close the door?

I think we ran into the same discussion we're having now about Extra Attack, which is the "On Your Turn" discussion.

That interaction is "On Your Turn"

_________________________________

Again, there are a few quirks about 5e's action economy that I'm not fond of.

It is a shame that Delay has been removed completely, in order to just let your teammates and opponents act before your turn, in order to better interact with one another.

I would have liked to see Ready simply expand upon that mechanic, rather than hurt that mechanic.

Zalabim

2016-01-25, 08:31 AM

It is easier to list the restriction on the ability. That way you know what the ability does when you get the ability. It would take up more words and be more confusing if the Ready action had to list every class ability that did not work when it's not your turn. It also wouldn't work as soon as they printed any new material with an ability that should only work on your turn. It would also have to be listed in any future ability that allowed something to be done as a reaction.

Just off the top of my head, the Barbarian's Reckless Attack and the Cleric's Divine Strike both only work on your turn as well.

Desamir

2016-01-25, 12:59 PM

Everything should be taking with a grain of salt. But he puts thought into the difference between RAW, RAI, and even (in your link on spirit guardians) explains his line of thinking, such as the difference between potential major balance issues and actual ones.

Like I said, a major breath of fresh air. JC knows what his job is, and tries to do it, and generally does a good job. Sure beats someone who's idea of sage advice was creating house rules out of the whole cloth, like his predecessor did.

I'm not familiar with his predecessor, but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't very good (based on my experience with customer service during 4e). Not saying that you should ignore everything Jeremy says, just that if you treat him as the be-all and end-all rules source, you will end up with lots of unintuitive mechanics in your game.

Cutting Words, unlike Bardic Inspiration, Bane, and Bless, does not subtract the result from(or add the result to) an Attack Roll, Saving Throw, or Ability Check. It subtracts the result from the creature's roll.

Bardic Inspiration: Once within the next 10 minutes, the creature can roll the die and add the number rolled to one ability check, attack roll, or saving throw it makes.

Bane: Whenever a target that fails this saving throw makes an attack roll or a saving throw before the spell ends, the target must roll a d4 and subtract the number rolled from the attack roll or saving throw.

Bless: Whenever a target makes an attack roll or a saving throw before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to the attack roll or saving throw.

Cutting Words: When a creature that you can see within 60 feet of you makes an attack roll, an ability check, or a damage roll, you can use your reaction to expend one of your uses of Bardic Inspiration, rolling a Bardic Inspiration die and subtracting the number rolled from the creature's roll.

Not actually an off-base ruling.

Forgive me if I think this is a ridiculous interpretation (the kind that would draw accusations of munchkinning if anyone besides Jeremy Crawford had said it). In other instances where the book refers to the unmodified number shown on the die, the language "d20 roll" is used.

Reliable Talent Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 9 or lower as a 10.

Stroke of Luck Alternatively, if you fail an ability check, you can treat the d20 roll as a 20.

Rolling 1 or 20
If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC. In addition, the attack is a critical hit.
If the d20 roll for an attack is a 1, the attack misses regardless of any modifiers or the target's AC.

E’Tallitnics

2016-01-25, 01:36 PM

[...]
Forgive me if I think this is a ridiculous interpretation (the kind that would draw accusations of munchkinning if anyone besides Jeremy Crawford had said it). In other instances where the book refers to the unmodified number shown on the die, the language "d20 roll" is used.

Those aren't "interpretations". They are clearly spelled out examples of the RAW.

Not sure why you added the "d20 roll" examples as they're not the same thing, at all.

Desamir

2016-01-25, 02:16 PM

Those aren't "interpretations". They are clearly spelled out examples of the RAW.

Not sure why you added the "d20 roll" examples as they're not the same thing, at all.

Every other situation in the book where you add or subtract a modifier, it doesn't change the base number shown on the die (unless it specifically uses the wording "d20 roll"). Why should Cutting Words be any different?

It's a huge stretch to assume that "creature's roll" implies the unmodified roll. It is not by any means a "clearly spelled out example of the RAW."

As another example, a Fighter's Precision Attack says "you can expend one superiority die to add it to the roll." Does that affect your chance of rolling a natural 20 as well?

coredump

2016-01-25, 02:28 PM

According to Jeremy Crawford:

Cutting Words cancels natural 20s (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/01/06/can-i-cancel-a-20-with-cutting-words/) (and by association, Bardic Inspiration, Bless, and Bane all affect your crit chance).
A druid/monk shifted into a shark has up to a 25 foot walking speed on land (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/26/monkdruid-unarmored-movement/).
Devil's Sight doesn't work in dim light (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/18/devils-sight-vision/).
Lucky turns disadvantage into superadvantage (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_feats), so it's best to close your eyes while using it.

I don't play with any of these.

Good, if you don't like them you should not use them. But that is a far cry from what you first claimed.

First, even if those were 'off-base', that is what 4 out of several hundred?? How is that "Often"??

Second, the second one he *never* said. That is your incorrect twisting of what was said. Unarmored Movement does not give you a land speed if you don't already have one.

Third, the first one is a reasonable, if unexpected, reading of the RAW. Cutting Words effects the actual die roll, and is not a 'modifier' to be applied. It is analogous to Portent replacing the die....it is a feature that effects the die roll itself.

Fourth, the third and fourth are *exactly what the rules say*. Just because you wished the rules were written differently, doesn't mean he is 'off base'.

It's not necessarily that I don't like it, it's that it's not described in Ready Action ---- if it really is for Ready Action, just like the Spellcasting detriment. We could just as easily have stated that all readied actions require concentration, and elminated the wasted spell slot.

{Lots more snipped}

I wanted to reply to you.... but I really have no idea what any of your post is saying. It all seemed very arbitrary and disjointed..... Perhaps its just me, but I got nothin'.....

Desamir

2016-01-25, 02:42 PM

Good, if you don't like them you should not use them. But that is a far cry from what you first claimed.

First, even if those were 'off-base', that is what 4 out of several hundred?? How is that "Often"??

Clearly it's often enough--skim through the responses to the latest sage advice (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?476297-Sage-Advice-January-2016) a few threads up, for example. Expectations are low.

Second, the second one he *never* said. That is your incorrect twisting of what was said. Unarmored Movement does not give you a land speed if you don't already have one.

Sharks have a land speed of 0 feet listed in their stat block. Thus, RAW, that speed is increased by unarmored movement.

Third, the first one is a reasonable, if unexpected, reading of the RAW. Cutting Words effects the actual die roll, and is not a 'modifier' to be applied. It is analogous to Portent replacing the die....it is a feature that effects the die roll itself.
No, it's not at all reasonable. The wording of Cutting Words does not in any way imply that it affects the base die roll, anymore than the three other modifiers I mentioned. The wording is nearly identical to Precision Attack, Guided Strike, and War God's Blessing, which means these modifiers would affect your critical chance as well.

The wording has nothing in common with Portent, so I'm not sure why you're using it as an example.

Fourth, the third and fourth are *exactly what the rules say*. Just because you wished the rules were written differently, doesn't mean he is 'off base'.

By "off-base" I mean selecting the least intuitive or worst interpretation of a given rule. If the rules say something odd, Jeremy Crawford has put it upon himself to clarify the intent behind the rule. Sometimes his intent makes sense; other times, it's inconsistent with 5e as a whole or results in weird mechanics.

E’Tallitnics

2016-01-25, 04:12 PM

Every other situation in the book where you add or subtract a modifier, it doesn't change the base number shown on the die (unless it specifically uses the wording "d20 roll"). Why should Cutting Words be any different?

It's a huge stretch to assume that "creature's roll" implies the unmodified roll. It is not by any means a "clearly spelled out example of the RAW."

As another example, a Fighter's Precision Attack says "you can expend one superiority die to add it to the roll." Does that affect your chance of rolling a natural 20 as well?

Sorry but I'm going to have to wait until I get home to give you a considered answer. If what was posted previously is correct, and the 4 things do not state the same thing in exactly the same way, then it deserves much more attention than I can give it at work.