Ready Action + Magic Item

[R.Shackleford]

This is interesting...

https://i.imgur.com/KYilqdz.png

So even if using a magic item to cast a spell it doesn't work off the same rules.

I get it, but, seems to be adding more fiddly rules.

[uraniumrooster]

Makes sense to me.

Readying a spell takes your concentration - basically you do the casting on your turn, hold it, then use your reaction to release it.

Using a magic item just requires that you get the item ready, then activate it with your reaction, so no concentration is required as part of the held action (though if your magic item casts a spell that requires concentration, you wouldn't get around that).

[R.Shackleford]

Makes sense to me.

Readying a spell takes your concentration - basically you do the casting on your turn, hold it, then use your reaction to release it.

Using a magic item just requires that you get the item ready, then activate it with your reaction, so no concentration is required as part of the held action (though if your magic item casts a spell that requires concentration, you wouldn't get around that).

My issue is that you now have three different rules.

Non-Cast a Spell Action

Cast a Spell Action

Use Magic Item Action

Use magic item action would be part of the first group but a lot of magic items, such as wands, allow you to cast spells out of them. The magic item is giving you the ability to cast spells.

The issue I think really comes down to separating Cast a Spell and Use Magic Item and Use Item and Use Magic Item.


Again, I get why the ruling was this way, I just think this is leading down a fiddly road.

[uraniumrooster]

My issue is that you now have three different rules.

Non-Cast a Spell Action

Cast a Spell Action

Use Magic Item Action

Use magic item action would be part of the first group but a lot of magic items, such as wands, allow you to cast spells out of them. The magic item is giving you the ability to cast spells.

The issue I think really comes down to separating Cast a Spell and Use Magic Item and Use Item and Use Magic Item.


Again, I get why the ruling was this way, I just think this is leading down a fiddly road.

Ah, yeah, I agree with that. It is a bit fiddly. In my games I generally overlook the concentration requirement on Readied spells and treat them like any other readied action, for ease-of-play.

[RickAllison]

Ah, yeah, I agree with that. It is a bit fiddly. In my games I generally overlook the concentration requirement on Readied spells and treat them like any other readied action, for ease-of-play.

I kinda like the fluff that spells have that limitation. I also like that rogues (as befitting a sneaky person) are fantastic at ambushed because they lose none of their damage potential when Readying!

[R.Shackleford]

I kinda like the fluff that spells have that limitation. I also like that rogues (as befitting a sneaky person) are fantastic at ambushed because they lose none of their damage potential when Readying!

Unl35ss you have a very permissive and meta DM, you will find that using the ready action will diminish your damage potential by a lot.

[RickAllison]

Unl35ss you have a very permissive and meta DM, you will find that using the ready action will diminish your damage potential by a lot.

Rogues only need one attack to deal full damage. They do need to find a way to get advantage, but that isn't terribly difficult. A rogue lying in wait behind a corner to stab a guard should be just as strong as on his turn.

[R.Shackleford]

Rogues only need one attack to deal full damage. They do need to find a way to get advantage, but that isn't terribly difficult. A rogue lying in wait behind a corner to stab a guard should be just as strong as on his turn.

No.

Ready actions are not garunteed. You are giving up your action, which hitting AC is typically easy in 5e, to MAYBE do damage off turn.

Maybe the enemy isn't going to do what you think, maybe the enemy is taken out by an ally, maybe the enemy isn't even coming after you?

Seriously a group of goblins were in a room and the party kept using the ready action for when they opened the door... The goblins snuck out a secret door... hilariously I kept giving hints but they wanted to wait. I gave them a short rest.

[RickAllison]

No.

Ready actions are not garunteed. You are giving up your action, which hitting AC is typically easy in 5e, to MAYBE do damage off turn.

Maybe the enemy isn't going to do what you think, maybe the enemy is taken out by an ally, maybe the enemy isn't even coming after you?

Seriously a group of goblins were in a room and the party kept using the ready action for when they opened the door... The goblins snuck out a secret door... hilariously I kept giving hints but they wanted to wait. I gave them a short rest.

If you are readying, I would think it is for good reason. On such a case, the PC is going to be readying an action. Obviously a rogue would rather just stab someone on their turn, otherwise why would they wait to do so (I really don't know why you stated the objection like that. Using a situation when someone wouldn't be Readying an action to argue against it...).

So I suppose I will amend my statement to include what I would think is an obvious unstated assumption. The rogue doesn't lose his damage potential while Readying when put into a situation where he would use the Ready action. There, happy?

As for the goblins, that seems like a success without further information. They were prepared for if they did go through, but instead didn't have any encounter. The question is why they stuck around for so long...

[R.Shackleford]

If you are readying, I would think it is for good reason. On such a case, the PC is going to be readying an action. Obviously a rogue would rather just stab someone on their turn, otherwise why would they wait to do so (I really don't know why you stated the objection like that. Using a situation when someone wouldn't be Readying an action to argue against it...).

So I suppose I will amend my statement to include what I would think is an obvious unstated assumption. The rogue doesn't lose his damage potential while Readying when put into a situation where he would use the Ready action. There, happy?

As for the goblins, that seems like a success without further information. They were prepared for if they did go through, but instead didn't have any encounter. The question is why they stuck around for so long...

The rogue does lose damage potential because they potentially won't deal any damage PLUS they may potentially miss even if they do get to attack.

The potential DPR is not the same at all. Even if you do get to attack, your potential for doing damage was still not the same due to circumstances.

[RickAllison]

The rogue does lose damage potential because they potentially won't deal any damage PLUS they may potentially miss even if they do get to attack.

The potential DPR is not the same at all. Even if you do get to attack, your potential for doing damage was still not the same due to circumstances.

Missing that attack isn't losing damage potential because that is the only attack they have by default! What is the difference between Cunning Action (Hide) and a Readied action to attack an enemy who probably will come into view (and isn't already) compared to Cunning Action (Hide) into an attack. So long as the trigger occurs, there is 0 difference.

[R.Shackleford]

Missing that attack isn't losing damage potential because that is the only attack they have by default! What is the difference between Cunning Action (Hide) and a Readied action to attack an enemy who probably will come into view (and isn't already) compared to Cunning Action (Hide) into an attack. So long as the trigger occurs, there is 0 difference.

No.

When you use the attack action with a rogue and miss with your attack you get to use this tiny little thing called a bonus action in order to dual wield. You can then get another shot at dealing sneak attack damage.

You are giving up a 100% increase in potential attacks in order to maybe attack once.

You are giving up a definately attack plus an attack if you miss in order to maybe attack once.

The ready action is niche, but not something a rogue wants to do unless they have no attacks to begin with (due to circumstance) and even then the Rogue could take the Dodge Action and Bonus Action Hide so they shore up their defenses in case there is an attack from a location you aren't aware of.

The ready action can be nice but you are losing damage potential when you use it on a rogue in such a way.

[Zalabim]

Hiding and shooting is a good use of your rogue's time to begin with. If you have to hide and ready to shoot, that's no loss.

If you Dodge to avoid attacks you don't expect coming, you're going to be disappointed because Dodge only works on attacks you can see.

You can use TWF if you miss with your first attack, but that's something you have to already be armed for, and it requires you to attack an enemy who is already threatened by someone else. You'll rarely get in melee range in the middle of combat while remaining hidden, and even if you can, you won't be hidden after your first attack. So if you're using TWF, you might still ready an attack for when an enemy becomes eligible for sneak attack instead of attacking twice without sneak attack.

None of this is the real point of the comparison though. The point of the comparison is that someone with Extra Attack(s) only gets one attack on a Ready. A spellcaster uses concentration even if the spell normally doesn't. A rogue pays no special cost and loses no class feature.

[R.Shackleford]

Hiding and shooting is a good use of your rogue's time to begin with. If you have to hide and ready to shoot, that's no loss.

If you Dodge to avoid attacks you don't expect coming, you're going to be disappointed because Dodge only works on attacks you can see.

You can use TWF if you miss with your first attack, but that's something you have to already be armed for, and it requires you to attack an enemy who is already threatened by someone else. You'll rarely get in melee range in the middle of combat while remaining hidden, and even if you can, you won't be hidden after your first attack. So if you're using TWF, you might still ready an attack for when an enemy becomes eligible for sneak attack instead of attacking twice without sneak attack.

None of this is the real point of the comparison though. The point of the comparison is that someone with Extra Attack(s) only gets one attack on a Ready. A spellcaster uses concentration even if the spell normally doesn't. A rogue pays no special cost and loses no class feature.

Special cost: giving up attack for the round and getting nothing in return, not even a chance at getting a return.

Ready actions aren't a garunteed. Also hide + snipe isn't as easy in 5e as people believe unless your DM is being super nice or is using older rules.

[Zalabim]

Special cost: giving up attack for the round and getting nothing in return, not even a chance at getting a return.

Everyone pays that cost. It isn't special.

[Dalebert]

You don't have to treat Crawford's rulings as law. I think it's telling that even in AL-play, his rulings are not law; not even close. If someone complains about a DM-rulling to coordinators, which frankly is rare in my experience, then they could certainly use a Crawford ruling but that far from makes it automatic. His rulings have to be vetted like any other source before it becomes an official thing that DMs must abide by in AL games. It's not official until it becomes written down somewhere in some AL guidelines which is also rare because they're trying not to get "fiddly". So if you have a reasonable ruling that's there to keep things from getting fiddly, I think most people will respect that unless it's a game-changer that severely nerfs a key class concept or something, particularly so in a non-AL setting.


Everyone pays that cost. It isn't special.

Exactly. It's a good point that rogues pay a lower cost for readying by not having to give up extra attacks. There's an inherent cost most melee pay for readying even if the trigger happens perfectly as planned. It's also a good point that the trigger might not happen but that's a cost everyone pays regardless that can be ameliorated to some extent by smarter tactics. Thus the original points remains--rogues have an edge here and it fits with their flavor of being sneaky bastards in a fight rather than kick-in-the-door fighters.