Rules Q&A Tactical tumbling and Abrupt Jaunt [Archive]

ExLibrisMortis

2016-12-13, 05:41 AM

This is a bit unclear in the rules*. I think most people play with declared actions, where you first say "I'm going to use my actions like so: [...]", and then make the relevant rolls, as the DM requests. In such a system, I would say you can't take that initial declaration back (except when specifically allowed by RAW**). However, the degree to which you specify your actions is a bit fuzzy. For example, take a creature with three attacks: 15' reach tentacles, 10' reach claws, and a 5' reach bite. Do you declare which one you're attacking with, or do you declare that you take the 'melee attack' action? The answer very much matters to situations involving interruptions, like the ones you describe.

In my opinion, you should first declare that you are using an action to attack, then declare who you are attacking with what weapon, and all other relevant information, for each attack in order. That is, you should completely specify what you are about to do, before you get to make a roll. Each attack gets evaluated after the next, and you roll for an attack once the previous has been completely resolved***. Once made, that roll is 'locked in' those specific circumstances you made it under. Of course, table courtesy encourages that you make your rolls at once, to speed up play.

Once you have declared the action, you can't take that back. However, readied actions and immediate actions interrupt and preceed (in-universe) the action triggering respectively preceeding (out-of-universe) them. The question is: do they also interrupt the declaration of the action (or the individual attack), or not? In my opinion, they do not, because then you get the paradox of the readied action triggering on an action that no longer happens. To circumvent this, OOC declaration and IC execution are separated. Like this:

First, OOC action declarations are gathered, in initiative order.

DM declares action.
Player declares immediate action (interrupts).

Based on this OOC information, the in-universe sequence is compiled.

The player character gets to act first.
The monster gets to act second.

The DM now requests for rolls to be made to determine the successes and failures of the in-universe sequence.

Effectively, every action has a 'stack' of interrupts that is resolved before any actual rolls are made. Often, that stack has only the declared action on it, but you can have a series of immediate or readied actions taking place, and even crazy sequences like multiple synchronicity actions interrupting celerity.

Under this system, the answer to your questions 2 is 'yes'. I think that is the case for most other interpretations, as well.
The answer to your questions 1 is 'lose the first attack'. Further attacks can be made against different targets.

*Or maybe I'm just overthinking it. It happens.
**Notably, full attacks allow you to determine which weapon is used on a per-attack basis, allowing some strategizing within a single action. Attacks are effectively sub-actions. You can even decide to break off a full attack (or continue a standard action attack) after the first attack has been evaluated. That is arguably a separate declaration, rather than the taking back of one.
***In general, never have two rolls waiting to be resolved concurrently. Always resolve the first before starting the second.

Aimeryan

2016-12-13, 05:50 AM

Note, if you move out a square that a creature threatens they get to make an Attack of Opportunity, which should go before you are able to move away. If that Attack of Opportunity was a trip...

Of course, if you successfully tumble this isn't an issue.

As for the questions, I would rule that since the whole point of making an Attack Roll vs. the opponent's AC is to decide if you are able to overcome your opponent's attempt to avoid getting hit (e.g. by dodging the attack) then moving away as someone attempts an attack is already covered (that is called dodging the attack). Therefore, readying a move should not be the same thing as dodging an attack as it happens - your character is already doing this!

Since readying states it occurs before the action that triggers it I think the answer is fairly clear that the action has yet to occur for the opponent to waste. Indeed, I don't think you could even say you knew they were definitely going to attack - readying seems to suggest that you must presume something has met the condition. In this case, I wouldn't even tell the player that the opponent was going to attack, just ask them at the possible time the opponent is able to attack if the player wants to take their ready action - the opponent may have had other intentions altogether.

The more interesting question is, does this mean that the move action they were taking has stopped? This is more dubious, but I would suggest no - they have yet to make their attack and thus have not yet stopped. I'm sure some will disagree, however.

~~~

As for Abrupt Jaunt, I would rule that the attack is lost since you can do the immediate action as the attack action is taking place. Note though, you couldn't do so after the attack roll; so no waiting to see if it hits first. This may be of interest to you: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/38370/rulings-usage-on-abrupt-jaunt

Kuu Lightwing

2016-12-13, 05:54 AM

Wow, I did not expect such a wall of answer :)

The interesting thing, though with the second line of questions wouldn't it make sense that "I attack this creature" "locks" you into attacking the particular square the creature is standing? I know that it's not quite supported by the rules anywhere, but from in-universe perspective, if you swing at someone standing in front of you, and it suddenly teleports behind you (with Abrupt Jaunt or readied Dimension Hop), most of the time you can't exactly redirect your swing back there all of a sudden.

Deophaun

2016-12-13, 06:06 AM

Khedrac

2016-12-13, 06:23 AM

Zanos

2016-12-13, 06:41 AM

Indeed - and with the attacker's original intention no longer valid not only can they choose to attack someone else, but they can move after the original target (if they have enough movement left) to attack them if they can still reach them.
I'm fairly certain this is not the case. That would be revising a move action which already occurred in it's entirety.

Deophaun

2016-12-13, 06:44 AM

Indeed - and with the attacker's original intention no longer valid not only can they choose to attack someone else, but they can move after the original target (if they have enough movement left) to attack them if they can still reach them.
And things get really weird by RAW if it was a charge that was interrupted, as the charger can continue but validity is still determined from his starting square, not his current position. It does no good to put difficult terrain between you and where he is now (aside from using up movement); you need to put difficult terrain between you and where he started his turn.

This is probably best houseruled for basic sanity.

I'm fairly certain this is not the case. That would be revising a move action which already occurred in it's entirety.
This is basically where the rules fail, as there is literally nothing on this. We only know that, baring feats/special abilities, you cannot take a move or a standard action while performing another move or standard action. Beyond this, there is nothing that tells us when a move action has ended. Even when you have moved your full speed, there can still be oddities like drawing a weapon that you can decide on.

Kuu Lightwing

2016-12-13, 07:57 AM

Aimeryan

2016-12-13, 08:25 AM

So, there's been a few different answers so far, so a few more thoughts:

1) Aimeryan, if we rule that the attack is lost because immediate action can interrupt the attack, why doesn't it work the same way for readied action, which specifically interrupts the other character's turn?

2) I'm not liking the idea that action that triggers my readied action never happens if it allows to change your mind after the readied action. For example: I ready an action to tumble 15 feet to the side if a creature gets closer than 15 feet from me. The creature uses a full-round action to charge. If we go by "just before the action that triggered the readied action" rules, that means, the creature charges, moves until it's 10 feet away from me, and... what happens exactly? Does the time get reversed to "just before" it started its charge and it can charge me again to my new position?

3) I don't necessarily agree that Attack is an action that can't be interrupted by any means. There are spells like Deflect, powers like Evade Attack or maneuvers like Wall of Blades that are used in response to somebody attacking you. I'm not sure if it's meant to work like "Ogre swings its greatclub at you" - "I use Wall of Blades to deflect the strike!" - "Okay, It attacks Wizard instead."

1) Ready interrupts the turn, but not the action itself; it happens before the action that triggers it.

2) I know, kind of weird because it implies some sort of timewarp, but that is how it is written. It seems to me that since you are ready for 'something to occur' you anticipate that that 'something to occur' is about to occur and take a pre-emptive action in response (one that was specified beforehand). Your opponent is then free to react as you would expect.

With a movement 'something to occur', I guess you have to anticipate the "Ogre" will trigger that 'something to occur' (by making a Movement action to do so) and then take your readied-action - before it actually starts its Movement action. How do you know it is about to move? Maybe it looked at you funny.

Maybe the issue is that "gets closer than x feet from me" is too specific for readying an action as 3.5e rules it. Instead, you have to state an action it will trigger before (and then presume that that action is about to occur?) rather than a point inside of an action; i.e., you say "when the Ogre goes to move" - maybe you could get away with "towards me" added on.

To put it another way, you wouldn't say "when the Ogre's weapon is 0.1mm away from me I will Attack him, before it hits me" - it is just too specific for "readying an action" and that is where the problem lies. I think you can only really be as specific as a whole action.

3) I think an action can be interrupted, just not by readying an action. Abrupt Jaunt is a good example.

Pleh

2016-12-13, 08:32 AM

Deophaun

2016-12-13, 08:35 AM

2) I'm not liking the idea that action that triggers my readied action never happens if it allows to change your mind after the readied action. For example: I ready an action to tumble 15 feet to the side if a creature gets closer than 15 feet from me. The creature uses a full-round action to charge. If we go by "just before the action that triggered the readied action" rules, that means, the creature charges, moves until it's 10 feet away from me, and... what happens exactly?
It moves until it's 15 feet away from you, and before it moves to 10 feet, you tumble. It then continues the charge.

3) I don't necessarily agree that Attack is an action that can't be interrupted by any means.
I would think it would be difficult to agree with a statement no one has made.

Kuu Lightwing

2016-12-13, 08:39 AM

1) Ready interrupts the turn, but not the action itself; it happens before the action that triggers it.

2) I know, kind of weird because it implies some sort of timewarp, but that is how it is written. It seems to me that since you are ready for 'something to occur' you anticipate that that 'something to occur' is about to occur and take a pre-emptive action in response (one that was specified beforehand). Your opponent is then free to react as you would expect.

With a movement 'something to occur', I guess you have to anticipate the "Ogre" will trigger that 'something to occur' (by making a Movement action to do so) and then take your readied-action - before it actually starts its Movement action. How do you know it is about to move? Maybe it looked at you funny.

Maybe the issue is that "gets closer than x feet from me" is too specific for readying an action as 3.5e rules it. Instead, you have to state an action it will trigger before (and then presume that that action is about to occur?) rather than a point inside of an action; i.e., you say "when the Ogre goes to move" - maybe you could get away with "towards me" added on.

Why all of a sudden I can't ready an action under that condition? It's even worse if I ready it like this "when the enemy comes into range I manifest Crystal Shard at it" Let's assume that my ML is 10 and target is 60 feet away from me. So, until it comes closer, it's not a valid target for Crystal Shard. However if it charges me, or even moves towards me, it comes closer, but since my readied action should happen before the charge, or move, I still can't target it with my Crystal Shard. I don't need to anticipate him coming closer to me, I need him to actually come closer so I can hit it with my Crystal Shard.

Next, by RAW I can ready an action to counter an enemy spell being cast. However, to counter it, I need to roll a Spellcraft check yadda-yadda. But to do so, I need to see or hear Somatic or Verbal components of the spell to identify it, but since my action is happening before the enemy casts a spell, I can't see any components, because she hasn't started casting the spell yet.

If we rule that Ready cannot interrupt actions and happens before, then it breaks much more than it fixes.

Kuu Lightwing

2016-12-13, 08:43 AM

Looks like a lot of people have done a lot of work outlining the RAW, so here's how I would rule it at my table.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you want to be outside his reach the moment he decides to attack you, then you tumbleport away before he uses his action. Ergo, he still has an action at his disposal for whatever he wants.

If you wait for him to start using his action so he expends his action, then the attack goes against your AC and you tumbleport after the attack is determined.

It would be a nifty class feature that let you tumbleport as he was attacking you, but as a DM, I'd need a class feature to allow it. This is why Abrupt Jaunt would probably work and the tumble skill by itself wouldn't. Maybe a Tumble check combined with an Initiative/Iaijutsu check to let you time your dodge where the enemy can't stop their attack while you still have time to move. Abrupt Jaunt, however, seems to be specifically worded to allow this type of play.

Abrupt Jaunt, yes. Tumble, you have to choose either to tumble before the action is used or you face normal attack rules.

Readying an action to tumble away is actually worse than Abrupt Jaunt in the sense of action economy. You use your standard action to exchange it with enemy's standard action which might not happen at all (enemy could decide to attack something else, or cast a spell, or whatnot), or, even worse with a single attack if it could use his attacks for something else, while Abrupt Jaunt only eats an immediate action.

It moves until it's 15 feet away from you, and before it moves to 10 feet, you tumble. It then continues the charge.

Wait, but that would mean that readied action does interrupt another action (Charge action in this case). Also, I just reread the charge rules, they don't specifically say that you should move in a straight line, so, that has some interesting results - like being able to turn while charging.

Deophaun

2016-12-13, 08:54 AM

This is why Abrupt Jaunt would probably work and the tumble skill by itself wouldn't.
Abrupt Jaunt does not work.

Let's run down what happens:

The attack roll:

An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
Your attempt to strike a target is represented by an attack roll. Ergo, if you do not make an attack roll, you have not attempted to strike a target. What are your targets?

Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet.
If it's in reach, you can make an attack. If it's not within reach, you cannot.

So, with Abrupt Jaunt, either you are Abrupt Jaunting after your opponent has had the opportunity to try to hit you, represented by an attack roll, or you have left his reach and he never even makes the attempt. Thus, if Abrupt Jaunt is going to spoil an attack, its magic has to work after the opportunity. Let's continue.

Damage Rolls: If the attack roll result equals or exceeds the target’s AC, the attack hits and you deal damage.
Hmm. Note that there is no "and the target is still in reach" or "is still valid" here. The only requirement is for the attack roll that you have made to equal or exceed the target's AC. Abrupt Jaunt says -nothing- that would affect this. Therefore, if you Abrupt Jaunt after the opportunity, you still take damage as normal if the roll exceeds your AC.

Meanwhile, something like evade attack does specify that it can cause attacks to miss, so it works fine when employed after the opportunity.

Keep in mind, it is casters that have access to a plethora of immediate-action moves and mundanes that have to contend with them. If you decide to not follow RAW, you are boosting casters at the expense of mundanes, and I need to ask, given the existing balance: why the heck would you ever do that?

Aimeryan

2016-12-13, 08:56 AM

Why all of a sudden I can't ready an action under that condition? It's even worse if I ready it like this "when the enemy comes into range I manifest Crystal Shard at it" Let's assume that my ML is 10 and target is 60 feet away from me. So, until it comes closer, it's not a valid target for Crystal Shard. However if it charges me, or even moves towards me, it comes closer, but since my readied action should happen before the charge, or move, I still can't target it with my Crystal Shard. I don't need to anticipate him coming closer to me, I need him to actually come closer so I can hit it with my Crystal Shard.

Next, by RAW I can ready an action to counter an enemy spell being cast. However, to counter it, I need to roll a Spellcraft check yadda-yadda. But to do so, I need to see or hear Somatic or Verbal components of the spell to identify it, but since my action is happening before the enemy casts a spell, I can't see any components, because she hasn't started casting the spell yet.

If we rule that Ready cannot interrupt actions and happens before, then it breaks much more than it fixes.

I don't agree that readying an action should require that you trigger before the movement action, but that is what RAW says:

The action occurs just before the action that triggers it.

It specifies that an action triggers it; it does not say 'a point within an action'. The rules are clearly intended to work with actions as the atomic value that can't be split.

Now, I would automatically rule as intended that you can interrupt a movement action (think of an archer watching a door, or a person waiting round a corner, etc.), but how that is dealt with would require some houserule because readying an action does not cover it.

~~~

As for counter-spelling, that is an entirely different thing "Readying to Counterspell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm)". Specifically, it says:

In this case, when the spellcaster starts a spell, you get a chance...

The "In this case" part quite clearly states that it is not the normal case.

Deophaun

2016-12-13, 08:58 AM

Why all of a sudden I can't ready an action under that condition? It's even worse if I ready it like this "when the enemy comes into range I manifest Crystal Shard at it" Let's assume that my ML is 10 and target is 60 feet away from me. So, until it comes closer, it's not a valid target for Crystal Shard. However if it charges me, or even moves towards me, it comes closer, but since my readied action should happen before the charge, or move, I still can't target it with my Crystal Shard. I don't need to anticipate him coming closer to me, I need him to actually come closer so I can hit it with my Crystal Shard.
Then you ready an action for when it comes to within 55 feet or it stops at 60 feet. Remember: when you ready an action, you specify the conditions. Most DMs understand what you want even if your language doesn't mesh with the game's mechanics, and what you want is perfectly achievable under the rules.

Next, by RAW I can ready an action to counter an enemy spell being cast. However, to counter it, I need to roll a Spellcraft check yadda-yadda. But to do so, I need to see or hear Somatic or Verbal components of the spell to identify it, but since my action is happening before the enemy casts a spell, I can't see any components, because she hasn't started casting the spell yet.
Which is why all attempts to interrupt or counter a spell are actually hinged on when the spell takes effect, not when it is cast. Again, DMs know what you want to do, and what you want to do is perfectly achievable, so we don't sweat the language.

If we rule that Ready cannot interrupt actions and happens before, then it breaks much more than it fixes.
You will need to provide examples where it breaks anything.

Kuu Lightwing

2016-12-13, 09:09 AM

I don't agree that readying an action should require that you trigger before the movement action, but that is what RAW says:

The action occurs just before the action that triggers it.

It specifies that an action triggers it; it does not say 'a point within an action'. The rules are clearly intended to work with actions as the atomic value that can't be split.

Now, I would automatically rule as intended that you can interrupt a movement action (think of an archer watching a door, or a person waiting round a corner, etc.), but how that is dealt with would require some houserule because readying an action does not cover it.

Yes, they are intended to work like atomic values, but when you try to use them like that, in many cases the idea of readying an action just falls apart.

As for counter-spelling, that is an entirely different thing "Readying to Counterspell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm)". Specifically, it says:

In this case, when the spellcaster starts a spell, you get a chance...

The "In this case" part quite clearly states that it is not the normal case.

It's a subset of readied actions - you do it the same way, and specify trigger conditions, as SRD puts it "often with the trigger "if she starts casting a spell" and resolve the same way.

Another subset is "Distracting Spellcasters" which doesn't specifically say that you would damage them during the process of casting spells instead of "just before" like it normally happens, while spellcasters have to roll concentration only when they're damaged while they actually casting the spell.

It seems to me that more often than not Ready does indeed interrupt the action instead of happening "just before", otherwise it just does not work/

Deophaun

2016-12-13, 09:10 AM

Wait, but that would mean that readied action does interrupt another action (Charge action in this case).
Indeed. Constant reading of the rules has taught me that game terms... aren't. Target, area, and action get used in contexts where they clearly do not behave like game terms, because the examples break. If the game says X is possible while using term Y, and term Y is a game term whose definition would make X impossible, then Y is not being used as a game term.

Also, I just reread the charge rules, they don't specifically say that you should move in a straight line, so, that has some interesting results - like being able to turn while charging.
In specific circumstances, yes, you can. However, it does say directly toward your opponent, so that will normally mean a straight line. But, if the target has readied an action to move during your charge, then you very well can turn.

Edit: I thought I'd add this:

MISCELLANEOUS ACTIONS Some actions don’t fit neatly into the above categories. Some of these options are actions that take the place of or are variations on the actions described under Standard Actions, Move Actions, and Full-Round Actions. For actions not covered below, the DM lets you know how long such an action takes to perform and whether doing so provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening enemies.
So it's perfectly valid to interpret movement from one square to the next as a miscellaneous action, making a move action capable of being interrupted. You are not limited to the Full-round, Standard, Move, Free paradigm.

ExLibrisMortis

2016-12-13, 09:28 AM

Actual RAW answer:

There is no such thing as a declaration phase of action; things happen or they do not happen, your intention to do something does not matter. Declaring your action is a piece of game etiquette so that others know what the dice you are rolling represent, but it has no place within the Rules as Written.
You're completely missing the point. There are insufficient rules on the matter, so it is not RAW, sure. It is 'a piece of game etiquette', certainly. However, your intention to do something does matter - that's why you get to roll the dice and have them mean something. Whether the things you intend to do happen (or rather, succeed) or not depends on the outcome of that die roll. Declaring your actions is core to the functioning of the game.

You have to declare your actions, even when they're not in 'combat time', and even when you don't need to roll for them. 'Declaring actions' is all D&D is, the most core assumption of the game - we sit around a table and tell eachother what our characters do. In a game setting, there is an arbiter - DM - who tells you what the result of your action is, how many actions you get to take, and so forth. If the result depends on a die roll, the DM decides what you need to roll. You don't know what you need to roll until you ask the DM, and you don't get to do anything until you tell the DM (and, usually, the rest of the table, but that's optional). It actually makes more sense to say that there is only a declaration phase of action, and everything else (step 2-3 in my list) is processing that.

Now, some DMs may allow you to 'take back' a declared action, but as I wrote, I don't think that should be possible, and then the whole of my post happens. If you change that assumption, then it does not apply. Neither stance is particularly RAW, because RAW is silent on the general matter, specifying only certain cases.

DMGII has a section on takebacks, on page 25. This is the opening paragraph:
It might be tough to know whether a player is definitively announcing her character’s actions or is merely thinking out loud. Sometimes a player announces a decision in jest, or without due thought, and then reacts in appalled surprise when you start rolling dice and narrating the grim results of her rash decision. To avoid this situation, make clear your policy on announced actions.To me, this seems to imply that
you should declare your actions, and
the exact rules on takebacks are up to the individual DM.
Note that none of the sample policies given has 'takebacks are generally okay' as starting point. The first option is 'no takebacks', the second is 'joke declarations are not for reals', and the third is 'takebacks for misinformed or nonsensical actions only'. The latter refers to things like "I open the door and step through" - "There's a chasm, do you still want to step through?", when it would be unreasonable to expect the character to miss the chasm just because the player didn't know about it yet.

To sum up: you must declare your actions, and takebacks are not generally okay - they must be specifically approved. Then, my earlier post.

3) I think an action can be interrupted, just not by readying an action. Abrupt Jaunt is a good example.
Well, that ties in with what Deophaun said in his second post: there are no rules on whether you can take a readied action in the middle of another action. I assumed that you can, therefore you can ruin an attack by readying. There are no rules on what constitutes a proper trigger for a readied action (or contingent spell, and so forth), which is why you get things like "I can talk out of turn, talking is a free action, therefore I can trigger contingent spells at will".

Note that if you cannot take a readied action in the middle of another action, you can't interrupt a charge with a readied polearm. That'd be problematic. On the other hand, I'm sure there are problems that result from being able to interrupt an action at any point.

Aimeryan

2016-12-13, 09:31 AM

Yes, they are intended to work like atomic values, but when you try to use them like that, in many cases the idea of readying an action just falls apart.

It's a subset of readied actions - you do it the same way, and specify trigger conditions, as SRD puts it "often with the trigger "if she starts casting a spell" and resolve the same way.

It is a subset of Ready:

The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun. Readying is a standard action. It does not provoke an attack of opportunity (though the action that you ready might do so).

That is exactly what Readying to Counterspell inherits from, not Readying an Action which is a different subset of Ready.

I agree the idea falls apart (more so for movement than for other things), but similarly the idea falls apart if you allow the readied action to take place at any point of an action (the previously mentioned 'micrometers from my face I will now attack and connect before it hits', for example). Again, I agree for movement that this sucks, but note that weird things can happen here too:

"When the veteran warrior comes within 10 feet of me I will run right up to him and then loop around him at 5 feet away and then back off - he wont hit me while I'm doing that because that makes sense".

Another subset is "Distracting Spellcasters" which doesn't specifically say that you would damage them during the process of casting spells instead of "just before" like it normally happens, while spellcasters have to roll concentration only when they're damaged while they actually casting the spell.

It seems to me that more often than not Ready does indeed interrupt the action instead of happening "just before", otherwise it just does not work/

Again, Distracting Spellcasters is a subset of Ready, not Readying an Action. It says:

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).

It doesn't mention "before the action that triggers it". Without that phrase you have to go with normal cause-causality rules that the attack occurs when "she starts casting a spell". I don't see the issue here.

Note that if you cannot take a readied action in the middle of another action, you can't interrupt a charge with a readied polearm. That'd be problematic. On the other hand, I'm sure there are problems that result from being able to interrupt an action at any point.

Readying a Weapon against a Charge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm#):

You can ready certain piercing weapons, setting them to receive charges. A readied weapon of this type deals double damage if you score a hit with it against a charging character.

There is a subset of Ready for that - it isn't part of Readying an Action.

ExLibrisMortis

2016-12-13, 09:49 AM

Readying a Weapon against a Charge (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm#):

You can ready certain piercing weapons, setting them to receive charges. A readied weapon of this type deals double damage if you score a hit with it against a charging character.

There is a subset of Ready for that - it isn't part of Readying an Action.
That doesn't particularly matter to my point. I'm just saying that at least one use of Ready takes place during another action, therefore actions are not always atomic. Charge is a particularly easy one to identify, because by the time the readied polearm strikes, the movement has happened, but the attack has not, and they are part of the same full-round action.

Going from there, I would rule that actions are generally not atomic, mainly because it's never stated that they are.

Kuu Lightwing

2016-12-13, 09:55 AM

Indeed. Constant reading of the rules has taught me that game terms... aren't. Target, area, and action get used in contexts where they clearly do not behave like game terms, because the examples break. If the game says X is possible while using term Y, and term Y is a game term whose definition would make X impossible, then Y is not being used as a game term.

In specific circumstances, yes, you can. However, it does say directly toward your opponent, so that will normally mean a straight line. But, if the target has readied an action to move during your charge, then you very well can turn.

Edit: I thought I'd add this:

So it's perfectly valid to interpret movement from one square to the next as a miscellaneous action, making a move action capable of being interrupted. You are not limited to the Full-round, Standard, Move, Free paradigm.
Why can't you interpret an attack action this way too, then?

~Snip~

I agree the idea falls apart (more so for movement than for other things), but similarly the idea falls apart if you allow the readied action to take place at any point of an action (the previously mentioned 'micrometers from my face I will now attack and connect before it hits', for example). Again, I agree for movement that this sucks, but note that weird things can happen here too:

"When the veteran warrior comes within 10 feet of me I will run right up to him and then loop around him at 5 feet away and then back off - he wont hit me while I'm doing that because that makes sense".

On the other hand, it falls apart with someone with Spring Attack, Fly-by Attack or Ride-by Attack - you can't ready an action to strike them as they come close to you because you can't interrupt their action, which makes no sense.

It doesn't fall apart that much to ready a counterattack or evasion "micrometers from my face", because readying in general is anticipating for something to happen and reacting to it. Pretty much as suddenly setting a spear or a halberd against a charging horse (which, as we know could be done), or jumping away from it. Like I said, ready is a commitment - you anticipate an action, but it might not happen at all. You most likely would trade your Standard for enemy's Standard - pretty much like with counterspells.

~Snip~

On the "subset of Ready"

So, does that mean that if I ready a counterspell or ready an action to attack a spellcaster my initiative doesn't change, because only original "readying an action" entry mentions that? It would be weirdly specific.

Speaking of counterspells, can I ready a Crystal Shard against an enemy spellcaster to damage him with it and force a Concentration check? Manifesting a power is not an attack, so it would fall under general "Readying an Action" category, so it happens before enemy spell and thus won't force a concentration check...

Aimeryan

2016-12-13, 10:12 AM

That doesn't particularly matter to my point. I'm just saying that at least one use of Ready takes place during another action, therefore actions are not always atomic. Charge is a particularly easy one to identify, because by the time the readied polearm strikes, the movement has happened, but the attack has not, and they are part of the same full-round action.

Going from there, I would rule that actions are generally not atomic, mainly because it's never stated that they are.

I'm aware not all "Readying" is atomic in regards to Actions; it does not take away that "Readying an Action" specifically is. I'm not making this up! (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm#)

Speaking of counterspells, can I ready a Crystal Shard against an enemy spellcaster to damage him with it and force a Concentration check? Manifesting a power is not an attack, so it would fall under general "Readying an Action" category, so it happens before enemy spell and thus won't force a concentration check...

You can ready an attack against a spellcaster...

I think "attack" there includes a spell that deals damage, but I'm not certain on that. It is how I might rule it, though. On the other hand, perhaps Distracting is meant to be the physical option, while Counterspelling is the casting option. It isn't like mundanes can Counterspell...

So, does that mean that if I ready a counterspell or ready an action to attack a spellcaster my initiative doesn't change, because only original "readying an action" entry mentions that? It would be weirdly specific.

Initiative Consequences of Readying:

Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the readied action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed your readied action, you don’t get to take the readied action (though you can ready the same action again). If you take your readied action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.

I'll take your point on this that this appears to be a different subset of Ready from Readying an Action; can't explain why they didn't just list it directly under the Ready to avoid this. Still, I think given that every other subset starts with: You can ready... and this one does not, it seems to apply to all Ready subsets. Again, I take your point here though.

Personally I think most of this would be solved if there was another subset that was headed by "Readying against Movement" and had its own rules like the other special cases (Distracting, Counterspelling, against a Charge).

ExLibrisMortis

2016-12-13, 10:21 AM

I'm aware not all "Readying" is atomic in regards to Actions; it does not take away that "Readying an Action" specifically is. I'm not making this up! (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm#)
Hmm, right, I see what you mean.
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.
Unlike immediate actions and other Ready variants, Readying an Action does not take place during the trigger, but happens before the original action. That means you can do weird stuff by saying "I ready to do something in response to the second time they hit me" - this readied action interrupts, and happens before the full attack that triggered it, which should probably cancel out the two hits.

Depending on the strictness of your takeback rules, that would indeed allow the interrupted party to take an action back, and do something totally different, possibly rendering the readied action useless (something I personally dislike, because readying is marginal enough already, barring synchroniticy stacking). The action that was interrupted is more or less 'misinformed' (similar to the door-with-chasm story), and it's probably fair to give that back. In that case, you would also have a difference between immediate actions and readied actions. I don't like that you get a difference between Readying an Action and other Ready variants, but that's how it is, I suppose.

On the whole, this stuff is worth house-ruling to hell and back. At least hell is lawful.

Kuu Lightwing

2016-12-13, 10:49 AM

I'm aware not all "Readying" is atomic in regards to Actions; it does not take away that "Readying an Action" specifically is. I'm not making this up! (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialInitiativeActions.htm#)

We just found another dysfunctional rule. Also, interesting point is that even if you rule that it happens "just before" the action that triggers the Ready, it doesn't automatically mean that the other guy gets to chose another action. He gets to continue his actions if he can (as rules say), but rules doesn't say what are his options if his action is no longer valid or if he doesn't want to use said action anymore.

You can ready an attack against a spellcaster...

I think "attack" there includes a spell that deals damage, but I'm not certain on that. It is how I might rule it, though. On the other hand, perhaps Distracting is meant to be the physical option, while Counterspelling is the casting option. It isn't like mundanes can Counterspell...

Well, okay, what if I use a non-damaging spell or power? Like Glitterdust or Ray of Enfeeblement. There are rules for Concentration checks after being hit by a non-damaging spell. I don't want to counter his spell, because I didn't invest in Spellcraft, or perhaps I don't think I know a spell he would probably cast, or for some other reason. In any case, for some reason, I can't hit him just as he starts actually casting the spell, because Ready doesn't allow you to do so, unless you use a mundane weapon.

Initiative Consequences of Readying:

Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the readied action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed your readied action, you don’t get to take the readied action (though you can ready the same action again). If you take your readied action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round.

I'll take your point on this that this appears to be a different subset of Ready from Readying an Action; can't explain why they didn't just list it directly under the Ready to avoid this. Still, I think given that every other subset starts with: You can ready... and this one does not, it seems to apply to all Ready subsets. Again, I take your point here though.

Personally I think most of this would be solved if there was another subset that was headed by "Readying against Movement" and had its own rules like the other special cases (Distracting, Counterspelling, against a Charge).

Yea, there's also a special mention that when you "Ready an Action" your initiative count changes, which hasn't been said in other "special case" subsets of Ready. So we assume that this part still applies to those, while "just before" - does not. And that's kind of a weird thing to do.

Hmm, right, I see what you mean.
Unlike immediate actions and other Ready variants, Readying an Action does not take place during the trigger, but happens before the original action. That means you can do weird stuff by saying "I ready to do something in response to the second time they hit me" - this readied action interrupts, and happens before the full attack that triggered it, which should probably cancel out the two hits.

Depending on the strictness of your takeback rules, that would indeed allow the interrupted party to take an action back, and do something totally different, possibly rendering the readied action useless (something I personally dislike, because readying is marginal enough already, barring synchroniticy stacking). The action that was interrupted is more or less 'misinformed' (similar to the door-with-chasm story), and it's probably fair to give that back. In that case, you would also have a difference between immediate actions and readied actions. I don't like that you get a difference between Readying an Action and other Ready variants, but that's how it is, I suppose.

On the whole, this stuff is worth house-ruling to hell and back. At least hell is lawful.

Actually, "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. " actually implies that the action that triggers it also happens, doesn't it? Because it can't occur "just before" something that never happened.

And, I wasn't arguing that rules don't say it, I'm arguing because in many cases it doesn't make much sense - see the examples with Fly-by/Ride-by/Spring Attack, movement (especially with close-range powers and spells), even if we assume that the other examples are actually "special cases" which is a whole new can of worms.

Pleh

2016-12-13, 11:16 AM

Abrupt Jaunt does not work.

Let's run down what happens:

Skip!

So, with Abrupt Jaunt, either you are Abrupt Jaunting after your opponent has had the opportunity to try to hit you, represented by an attack roll, or you have left his reach and he never even makes the attempt. Thus, if Abrupt Jaunt is going to spoil an attack, its magic has to work after the opportunity.

Fine. Makes sense.

Hmm. Note that there is no "and the target is...

Skip!

Meanwhile, something like evade attack does specify that it can cause attacks to miss, so it works fine when employed after the opportunity.

Now this is a much more meaningful point. If some abilities specifically make attacks miss, then it should be assumed that others would not.

Keep in mind, it is casters that have access to a plethora of immediate-action moves and mundanes that have to contend with them. If you decide to not follow RAW, you are boosting casters at the expense of mundanes, and I need to ask, given the existing balance: why the heck would you ever do that?

I dunno, I guess I was trying to examine the intent behind Abrupt Jaunt's phrasing to assess the abilities that it was trying to communicate (RAI). It's not my fault the game has a preference for casters.

Aimeryan

2016-12-13, 11:17 AM

Well, okay, what if I use a non-damaging spell or power? Like Glitterdust or Ray of Enfeeblement. There are rules for Concentration checks after being hit by a non-damaging spell. I don't want to counter his spell, because I didn't invest in Spellcraft, or perhaps I don't think I know a spell he would probably cast, or for some other reason. In any case, for some reason, I can't hit him just as he starts actually casting the spell, because Ready doesn't allow you to do so, unless you use a mundane weapon.

The closest answer I could find is in the Invisibility Spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm):

The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.

Now it does say "For purposes of this spell", but it could be argued that a similar reading could be applied for Distracting. Otherwise... crossbow?

Yea, there's also a special mention that when you "Ready an Action" your initiative count changes, which hasn't been said in other "special case" subsets of Ready. So we assume that this part still applies to those, while "just before" - does not. And that's kind of a weird thing to do.

It is weird. I don't know why they listed it twice and with neither being in the more obvious place just under "Ready". Still, it seems to suggest that it is meant to be used in all cases of Readying, while the "just before" only appears in the Readying an Action section.

Actually, "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. " actually implies that the action that triggers it also happens, doesn't it? Because it can't occur "just before" something that never happened.

And, I wasn't arguing that rules don't say it, I'm arguing because in many cases it doesn't make much sense - see the examples with Fly-by/Ride-by/Spring Attack, movement (especially with close-range powers and spells), even if we assume that the other examples are actually "special cases" which is a whole new can of worms.

Well it breaks causality unless you reason that it means that you presume the action is about to occur. You can't literally do something before the thing that triggers it without some sort of change to how time works. You can, however, do something based on the presumption of the thing that triggers it before the thing that triggers it actually occurs. And, you could then be mistaken.

I think it works fairly well for non-Movement actions. I would just houserule Readying against Movement, to be honest.

Kuu Lightwing

2016-12-13, 12:43 PM

The closest answer I could find is in the Invisibility Spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/invisibility.htm):

The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.

Now it does say "For purposes of this spell", but it could be argued that a similar reading could be applied for Distracting. Otherwise... crossbow?

I'm hinting that the attack is a somewhat defined action (which is another topic for discussion) that doesn't have to do anything with spells. Arguably if you are holding the charge with a touch spell. And yes, that's a spell that's not exactly relevant to the subject of readied actions. If we include any spell affecting a foe yadda yadda into "attacks", that would make any bonus on attacks apply damage to those spells, so hello Locate City Bomb, now even cheesier.

It is weird. I don't know why they listed it twice and with neither being in the more obvious place just under "Ready". Still, it seems to suggest that it is meant to be used in all cases of Readying, while the "just before" only appears in the Readying an Action section
They put it there to not insert the entire decription of changing initiative count, so they explained it below.

Well it breaks causality unless you reason that it means that you presume the action is about to occur. You can't literally do something before the thing that triggers it without some sort of change to how time works. You can, however, do something based on the presumption of the thing that triggers it before the thing that triggers it actually occurs. And, you could then be mistaken.

I think it works fairly well for non-Movement actions. I would just houserule Readying against Movement, to be honest.
The PC plays the "guess what the enemy would do" game already when she specifies the condition of a readied action. No reason to force another round of that game. Also, breaking causality is another argument against "just before" ruling. Now, if that part was written like this: "just before you resolve the action that triggered the readied action" it would make more sense. Movement, spellcasting, attacks - none of this happens instanteneously so you can actually see what's going to happen and react to it since you prepared to do exactly that.

By the way, if you are going to houserule anyways, why do you want to houserule it only for movement? It's not like using a standard action to possibly negate another standard action, maybe a charge, is going to break the game. In fact, that would most likely be a bad use of your actions anyways.

Deophaun

2016-12-13, 06:39 PM

You have to declare your actions, even when they're not in 'combat time', and even when you don't need to roll for them.
This is false. I have been in plenty of games in instances where actions were not declared. Simply roll the die, then say "does that hit?" There is nothing in the rules that say you must announce your action, and the game functions without needing to announce your actions. Therefore, you are wrong.

You don't know what you need to roll until you ask the DM

Attack Rolls
An attack roll represents your attempts to strike your opponent.

Your attack roll is 1d20 + your attack bonus with the weapon you’re using. If the result is at least as high as the target’s AC, you hit and deal damage.
That's in the PHB. Anyone who is literate can know what to roll without asking the DM.

To me, this seems to imply that
you should declare your actions, and
the exact rules on takebacks are up to the individual DM.

Actually, the very existence of that section is proof that you are wrong: if there were rules for declaring actions, there wouldn't be suggestions for how DMs deal with players changing their minds. There are no suggestions here for takebacks of skill checks or movement, because those have rules.

Why can't you interpret an attack action this way too, then?
You can, but the point is that it doesn't matter: once the first domino falls, interrupting the action cannot stop the others from falling unless something in the ability specifically says so. You could allow someone to act when they take damage, after the attack roll but before damage is rolled. They could then give their own attack and kill the attacker. But, since the attack roll was made, they are still going to take damage even though the attacker is dead. Someone could planeshift immediately after an attack roll and that damage will literally follow them through the gates of Hell. I am at a loss as for how breaking the attack up can be useful without a power that has a specific exception.

ExLibrisMortis

2016-12-13, 09:35 PM

This is false. I have been in plenty of games in instances where actions were not declared. Simply roll the die, then say "does that hit?" There is nothing in the rules that say you must announce your action, and the game functions without needing to announce your actions. Therefore, you are wrong.
You are still missing the point.

If you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus, that means nothing. As far as the DM knows, you're just playing with dice.

If you ask your DM: "Does this hit", then you are interacting - people know the roll means something. Now, apparently, at some of your tables, simply asking whether a roll succeeds is enough to declare your action. That's fine, it probably results in fast and easy play. It doesn't change that the die roll meant nothing to the game until the other players became aware of it. Before you asked that question, you could've ignored or discarded the roll (although that might be cheating at some tables). Once you asked "does it hit", you made it clear that it is an attack roll, and that the DM is supposed to do something with it, and 'no takebacks' might come into play. Once you tell the DM, it becomes official, or 'declared'.

In other words: even if you don't play with an official declaration step, you are still declaring your actions. Otherwise, how do your fellow players even know you're doing things?

Deophaun

2016-12-13, 10:50 PM

You are still missing the point.

If you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus, that means nothing. As far as the DM knows, you're just playing with dice.

If you ask your DM: "Does this hit", then you are interacting - people know the roll means something. Now, apparently, at some of your tables, simply asking whether a roll succeeds is enough to declare your action. That's fine, it probably results in fast and easy play. It doesn't change that the die roll meant nothing to the game until the other players became aware of it. Before you asked that question, you could've ignored or discarded the roll (although that might be cheating at some tables). Once you asked "does it hit", you made it clear that it is an attack roll, and that the DM is supposed to do something with it, and 'no takebacks' might come into play. Once you tell the DM, it becomes official, or 'declared'.

In other words: even if you don't play with an official declaration step, you are still declaring your actions. Otherwise, how do your fellow players even know you're doing things?
First, I would say it's you missing the point: there is no such thing as an official declaration step. Does. Not. Exist. There is nothing there by RAW, so there is no way for RAW to lock you into it. It's like saying that the color of your mini determines your ability to Hide by RAW, when RAW makes no mention of it. Sure, the game may talk about minis, and minis will in 99.9% of cases have a color simply by necessity of being made of matter (generally baring something unpainted made of an unusually transparent material), but that doesn't mean there are mechanics to their color; that would be a houserule. And in your case, it's a houserule that buffs casters at the expense of mundanes, which brings us back to the question of why the heck anyone would institute it?

Second, your entire "point" is based on equivocation. Thus, you have none.

And let's pull this out:

Before you asked that question, you could've ignored or discarded the roll (although that might be cheating at some tables).
No, that is cheating. That is why at tables with low trust they require you to declare. My tables are pretty high trust: you don't. You don't even have to say "does it hit." Just say the number. Heck, you don't even have to say that. If you roll, and then pick up your die and throw it across the room, you don't need to say anything; we know you attacked and wiffed for the fifth time in a row.

Kuu Lightwing

2016-12-14, 01:20 AM

You can, but the point is that it doesn't matter: once the first domino falls, interrupting the action cannot stop the others from falling unless something in the ability specifically says so. You could allow someone to act when they take damage, after the attack roll but before damage is rolled. They could then give their own attack and kill the attacker. But, since the attack roll was made, they are still going to take damage even though the attacker is dead. Someone could planeshift immediately after an attack roll and that damage will literally follow them through the gates of Hell. I am at a loss as for how breaking the attack up can be useful without a power that has a specific exception.

First, if we are using weird houserules that Move is no longer a Move, but some "Miscellaneous" action, we're leaving the territory of strict RAW, because RAW say that it's a Move action. If you want to invent a Fish action that is like Move but can be specifically broken in the middle by readied action - all power to you, but that would be homebrew which has nothing to do with RAW. So either we're going RAW and you can't use Ready to wait until target moves to you, or we are houseruling this and then it's up to whoever makes the houserule.

Next, without breaking actions down, do you agree if action A happens just before action B, that implies that action B also happens?

Troacctid

2016-12-14, 01:31 AM

Your readied action occurs just before the event that triggered it, not the action that triggered it. It's an important distinction because, for example, if you ready an action to make a melee attack against any enemy that enters your threatened area, your attack happens at that point in their move, and not before their entire move action.

Aimeryan

2016-12-14, 02:43 AM

I'm hinting that the attack is a somewhat defined action (which is another topic for discussion) that doesn't have to do anything with spells. Arguably if you are holding the charge with a touch spell. And yes, that's a spell that's not exactly relevant to the subject of readied actions. If we include any spell affecting a foe yadda yadda into "attacks", that would make any bonus on attacks apply damage to those spells, so hello Locate City Bomb, now even cheesier.

You may be thinking of the Attack action, not an attack. However, I don't want to state that spells are attacks, although for some purposes I may allow that to be the case. Invisibility is one, touch spells are another:

Touch Attacks

Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack...

Scorching Ray is a ranged touch attack, so I would rule that it could be used in Distracting Spellcasters.

They put it there to not insert the entire decription of changing initiative count, so they explained it below.

I'm aware of the benefits of not duplicating things needlessly, however, the other Readying actions have neither referenced nor inherited the initiative change result - which is why it is weird how WotC have gone about it. Still, I would consider it fairly clear by intention that the initiative change result section does apply to the other Readying actions and is not just there for no reason.

The PC plays the "guess what the enemy would do" game already when she specifies the condition of a readied action. No reason to force another round of that game. Also, breaking causality is another argument against "just before" ruling. Now, if that part was written like this: "just before you resolve the action that triggered the readied action" it would make more sense. Movement, spellcasting, attacks - none of this happens instanteneously so you can actually see what's going to happen and react to it since you prepared to do exactly that.

By the way, if you are going to houserule anyways, why do you want to houserule it only for movement? It's not like using a standard action to possibly negate another standard action, maybe a charge, is going to break the game. In fact, that would most likely be a bad use of your actions anyways.

It seems Readying is built on having your character presume something is going to happen and attempting to pre-empt that something with an action of their own before the presumed trigger occurs. This works well for Attacks because taking the readied action before the triggering Attack action takes place can be quite useful - moving away, knocking the opponent back, sundering their weapon, disarming their weapon, etc. This works because you can stop the opponent's Attack action by taking these actions.

The reason you may Ready here, rather than just taking an action on your turn, is that by Readying an Action for their Attack action you have caused the opponent to use up their Move action in order to move towards you - i.e., they have committed resources already and thus are disadvantaged by you having waited. Furthermore, it is easy to presume when a melee user is going to attack you, since you can see them move close to you - so your Ready is not so easily wasted. Then there is also the fact that it might be possible that only a limited number of melee attackers could get to you and you would prefer to know which one will do so before you take action.

It is noteworthy that reacting to attacks is already counted for by the combat system via the Attack Roll vs. AC checks - which already includes attempting to dodge via Dex Bonus, and attempting to put your shield in the way, etc. It is probably for this reason that WotC wanted Readying an Action to be pre-emptive (by taking place before the trigger) rather than reactive.

Pre-empting Spellcasting with a readied action, however, often does not work so well - or at least rarely any better than just having taken the action on your turn would have been. The reason for this is that it is difficult to stop the enemy spellcaster from casting a spell by waiting to use an action for just before they start casting. Moving away might work, but it often will not. Sundering will rarely help. Disarming even less so. Knocking them back often wont help. The limited melee spots problem for the opponents does not exist here and a caster will rarely have to move first; so if the only option here was pre-emptive you might as well just take the action on your own turn. For these reasons, it makes sense that WotC would have decided to implement special Readying actions for dealing with Spellcasting that work reactively rather than pre-emptively; Distracting Spellcasters and Readying to Counterspell. WotC might have preferred it to be pre-emptive but they couldn't get it to work while actually providing any noticeable benefit and so settled for it being reactive.

So, Readying an Action works for Attacks, and Distracting Spellcasters + Counterspelling works for Spellcasters; the problem is with movement (via the Movement action, via charging, or via whatever). Pre-empting movement doesn't usually help since they can still move after your ready action and they have likely not already committed any resources. Also, it is difficult to presume correctly when a movement taken by an enemy is going to be used specifically against you, unlike with a melee attack - so your Ready action could be wasted quite easily on the wrong opponent. With movement you almost always want to be able to be reactive here rather than pre-emptive. Unfortunately, I think WotC dropped the ball here by not writing up a special case for movement, as well.

This is why I suggest the houserule for movement, particularly. You don't need any houserules for readying actions against Spellcasting - WotC already did that for you, essentially, and Attacks are fine being only able to pre-empt with a Readying action.

Deophaun

2016-12-14, 05:34 AM

First, if we are using weird houserules that Move is no longer a Move, but some "Miscellaneous" action, we're leaving the territory of strict RAW, because RAW say that it's a Move action. If you want to invent a Fish action that is like Move but can be specifically broken in the middle by readied action - all power to you, but that would be homebrew which has nothing to do with RAW. So either we're going RAW and you can't use Ready to wait until target moves to you, or we are houseruling this and then it's up to whoever makes the houserule.
It's not that move is no longer a move. It is that there is a move action, which is composed of multiple independent miscellaneous actions. That is consistent with RAW.

But, you don't actually need to do that, because readied actions are based on conditions. Readied actions occur when those conditions are met, except in the case of when that condition is an action. Then, it happens before the action.

So, if our condition is "Creature takes a move action," our readied action takes place before the creature moves.
If our condition is "Creature is within 30'," our readied action takes place when the creature is within 30'.

Next, without breaking actions down, do you agree if action A happens just before action B, that implies that action B also happens?
No. "I cast lightning bolt at him when he jumps." If you do so before he jumps, and the lightning bolt kills him, he obviously can no longer take a move action to jump. "Just before" implies that that action B is of indeterminate status, because it is the future.

ExLibrisMortis

2016-12-14, 05:36 AM

My tables are pretty high trust: you don't. You don't even have to say "does it hit." Just say the number. Heck, you don't even have to say that. If you roll, and then pick up your die and throw it across the room, you don't need to say anything; we know you attacked and wiffed for the fifth time in a row.
I don't know why you're so adamant about insisting that your table doesn't need declarations. You are confusing 'optimized communication/high-inference communication/non-verbal communication' with 'not communicating at all'. Your table rules that making a roll is equivalent to declaring an action; pre-rolling is cheating, thus each roll must represent an action. Streamlined, efficient, and nonverbal, but still a declaration.

If you think my point was that there is an RAW declaration step in the rules, you have not been reading my posts. In my first reply to you, I agreed that there is no RAW basis for a declaration step (although it is presumed by both the DMG example of play and the DMGII rules on takebacks), and then argued that the game breaks down if you do not declare, so the RAW basis is not needed to assume action declaration in some fashion, and that all play is in fact a declaration 'step' (which stops being much of a 'step' at that point).

It seems you are not willing to discuss the matter beyond "it's not RAW and I don't need it". Since the same thing happened the previous time action declaration came up, I'll just stop talking about it.

As a question to the thread's contributors: has anyone built a package of houserules/homebrew that neatly formalizes action types, turns, and order of execution?

Deophaun

2016-12-14, 05:40 AM

I don't know why you're so adamant about insisting that your table doesn't need declarations. You are confusing 'optimized communication/high-inference communication/non-verbal communication' with 'not communicating at all'.
Equivocation. "There is no declaration phase." Declare in this sense is clearly being used as followed

to make known or state clearly, especially in explicit or formal terms
Yet, you insist on acting as though I were using

to manifest; reveal; show
Stop it.

Kuu Lightwing

2016-12-14, 06:34 AM

You may be thinking of the Attack action, not an attack. However, I don't want to state that spells are attacks, although for some purposes I may allow that to be the case. Invisibility is one, touch spells are another:

Touch Attacks

Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack...

Scorching Ray is a ranged touch attack, so I would rule that it could be used in Distracting Spellcasters.

Okay, what about Fireball? Why can I use Scorching Ray to distract spellcasters, but not Fireball? If I want to distract a caster, wouldn't it be a better idea to conjure a huge ball of fire roughly at the place where the caster is instead of trying to precisely hit him with a ray?

It seems Readying is built on having your character presume something is going to happen and attempting to pre-empt that something with an action of their own before the presumed trigger occurs. This works well for Attacks because taking the readied action before the triggering Attack action takes place can be quite useful - moving away, knocking the opponent back, sundering their weapon, disarming their weapon, etc. This works because you can stop the opponent's Attack action by taking these actions.

That is another houserule. It doesn't say that your readied actions triggers when you think something is going to happen. It triggers when the conditions you specify are met, not when you think they would be met.

The reason you may Ready here, rather than just taking an action on your turn, is that by Readying an Action for their Attack action you have caused the opponent to use up their Move action in order to move towards you - i.e., they have committed resources already and thus are disadvantaged by you having waited. Furthermore, it is easy to presume when a melee user is going to attack you, since you can see them move close to you - so your Ready is not so easily wasted. Then there is also the fact that it might be possible that only a limited number of melee attackers could get to you and you would prefer to know which one will do so before you take action.

I have committed a much more significant resource - a standard action. Which I could have used to attack, charge (combined with my move) cast a spell, or activate a magic item. If I successfully predicted the opponents action I probably want a reward at least equal to the action I committed, because if I did not predict it, I get nothing, despite still using up my standard. It already is pretty situational, and trading it for enemy's move would make it even more underwhelming.

It is noteworthy that reacting to attacks is already counted for by the combat system via the Attack Roll vs. AC checks - which already includes attempting to dodge via Dex Bonus, and attempting to put your shield in the way, etc. It is probably for this reason that WotC wanted Readying an Action to be pre-emptive (by taking place before the trigger) rather than reactive.
That's generally a fluff question. There are different ways to react to attacks. Taking no action and using your AC and DEX would be standing right there avoiding blows, but not moving anywhere from your square. Or you want to wait for target to engage and try to attack you, and suddenly jump away from him. In first case, you don't use your other actions for anything - in second case, you prepare yourself to do just one thing. Also, it's difficult when you take into account things like Wall of Blades - because supposedly parrying already included in your AC among all other modes of defending yourself, but yet there's another specific maneuver that makes you parry stuff. Or one could say that dodging included in your AC, but yet there's a Tumble skill that allows you to avoid attacks of opportunity.

Pre-empting Spellcasting with a readied action, however, often does not work so well - or at least rarely any better than just having taken the action on your turn would have been. The reason for this is that it is difficult to stop the enemy spellcaster from casting a spell by waiting to use an action for just before they start casting. Moving away might work, but it often will not. Sundering will rarely help. Disarming even less so. Knocking them back often wont help. The limited melee spots problem for the opponents does not exist here and a caster will rarely have to move first; so if the only option here was pre-emptive you might as well just take the action on your own turn. For these reasons, it makes sense that WotC would have decided to implement special Readying actions for dealing with Spellcasting that work reactively rather than pre-emptively; Distracting Spellcasters and Readying to Counterspell. WotC might have preferred it to be pre-emptive but they couldn't get it to work while actually providing any noticeable benefit and so settled for it being reactive.

So, Readying an Action works for Attacks, and Distracting Spellcasters + Counterspelling works for Spellcasters; the problem is with movement (via the Movement action, via charging, or via whatever). Pre-empting movement doesn't usually help since they can still move after your ready action and they have likely not already committed any resources. Also, it is difficult to presume correctly when a movement taken by an enemy is going to be used specifically against you, unlike with a melee attack - so your Ready action could be wasted quite easily on the wrong opponent. With movement you almost always want to be able to be reactive here rather than pre-emptive. Unfortunately, I think WotC dropped the ball here by not writing up a special case for movement, as well.

This is why I suggest the houserule for movement, particularly. You don't need any houserules for readying actions against Spellcasting - WotC already did that for you, essentially, and Attacks are fine being only able to pre-empt with a Readying action.
Actually you do need them as demonstrated with all the examples above. We have to houserule that for the purpose of disrupting spellcasters, some spells should be considered attacks, while no rule actually state that. And I don't agree that "attacks are fine" for the reasons listed above.

Kuu Lightwing

2016-12-14, 07:55 AM

It's not that move is no longer a move. It is that there is a move action, which is composed of multiple independent miscellaneous actions. That is consistent with RAW.
No, it's not. "Some actions don’t fit neatly into the above categories. Some of these options are actions that take the place of or are variations on the actions described under Standard Actions, Move Actions, and Full-Round Actions." The action I take is Move. It not only fits in those categories it's clearly described there. So, splitting it in smaller actions that are not described anywhere is a house rule. Next, this rule basically says that it's up to DM to decide which actions are there, how long are they going to take and stuff like that. So yes, it's perfectly legal by RAW - as much as everything DM comes up with because Rule 0 exists.

So, that also means nothing prevents me from splitting Attack into three miscellaneous actions - declaring the attack, making attack roll, making damage roll. Which would mean that I could rule that Ready or Immediate action can prevent the attack from hitting If the characters move away.

But, you don't actually need to do that, because readied actions are based on conditions. Readied actions occur when those conditions are met, except in the case of when that condition is an action. Then, it happens before the action.

So, if our condition is "Creature takes a move action," our readied action takes place before the creature moves.
If our condition is "Creature is within 30'," our readied action takes place when the creature is within 30'.

No, they are not based on conditions. At least not by RAW. RAW is crystal clear on when the readied action takes place - "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it." Not "just as the condition is met", but just before the action that triggers it.

No. "I cast lightning bolt at him when he jumps." If you do so before he jumps, and the lightning bolt kills him, he obviously can no longer take a move action to jump. "Just before" implies that that action B is of indeterminate status, because it is the future.
Okay, so in this case "just before" ruling doesn't work at all. What if the Lightning bolt doesn't kill him. Can he change his mind and say "okay, I'm not going to jump, I'm going to use Healing Belt to heal myself"?

Aimeryan

2016-12-14, 08:10 AM

There are no houserules there, not really. There is RAW and RAI, with a suggestion that you make a houserule.

For example, we know RAW for Readying an Action is that the readied action takes place before the action that triggers it. Why that happens is another thing - I am saying I can play it out as presuming, which helps with RAI, as well as informing possible houserules. If you wish to believe that every commoner is able to invoke timewarps when they are Readying an Action that is up to you - you'll likely come up with different RAI and houserules.

As for Distracting Spellcasters you can rule that no spells do it if you like, or all - you rule on what you feel "attack" (not "Attack") covers. By Raw, attacks can be used. I mentioned Scorching Ray because it outright says that such spells are ranged touch attacks. You take it from there; if you feel it makes sense that Fireball is also an attack then go ahead - I can't find any RAW that says it is or is not.

I think I've gone over interrupting attacks with Readying an Action enough already, and the reasons why - especially that there is already a system in the game dedicated to doing exactly that based on your equipment and Dex. I see nothing that states by RAW that you can interrupt an action in Readying an Action. If you feel that the intent is that you can then RAI it.

I've said that I feel RAI for movement is that you should be able to interrupt someone while they are moving. RAW, however, is pretty clear. I suggest you RAI, but you'll have to houserule for the consequences.

Troacctid

2016-12-14, 03:52 PM

No, they are not based on conditions. At least not by RAW. RAW is crystal clear on when the readied action takes place - "The action occurs just before the action that triggers it." Not "just as the condition is met", but just before the action that triggers it.
Uh...what? No? I have the book in front of me right now and here is what it says:

You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, you must specify what you want to do and the conditions under which you will do so. Then, any time before your next turn, you can take the readied action in response to those conditions. The action occurs just before whatever triggers it. If the triggering condition is part of another creature’s activities, you interrupt that creature’s turn. Assuming the interrupted creature is still capable of doing so, it continues its turn once you complete your readied action.
Not before the action that triggers it. Before whatever triggered it.

Kuu Lightwing

2016-12-14, 04:11 PM

Uh...what? No? I have the book in front of me right now and here is what it says:

Not before the action that triggers it. Before whatever triggered it.

Thanks for the relevant quote. I used SRD, which actually states, that it occurs just before the action that triggers it. So, according to RC we're no longer use actions as atomic elements. So, the only question is if the stated trigger is "when it attacks me" would it allow to "take back" the attack that triggers the action, or not.

Aimeryan

2016-12-15, 02:02 AM

Thanks for the relevant quote. I used SRD, which actually states, that it occurs just before the action that triggers it. So, according to RC we're no longer use actions as atomic elements. So, the only question is if the stated trigger is "when it attacks me" would it allow to "take back" the attack that triggers the action, or not.

Did not know about the Rule Compendium's phrasing. Note that the Rules Compendium does not actually rule that it is not atomic - it simply doesn't state that it is. I don't know if this is enough to remove the phrase from the Players Handbook pg 160.

Lets assume it is enough. I see problems with just how precise these conditions could get with the supposed limits of your character - including the interrupting of an attack while it occurs, potentially when you get hit. For example: "I ready a tumbled Move Action for 30 feet backwards when an opponent successfully hits me with a melee attack". The trigger is the successful hit with a melee attack. If you rule as going before what triggers it then you essentially get a "Nope, that didn't actually hit" - but only when it would have hit. As long as you can make the tumble check a melee opponent could never hit you (without some way of getting back to you and getting another Standard Action to Attack) - you could still use your Standard Action, of course. Fun.

I would not rule that you can always perfectly dodge when an opponent would have successfully hit, which this essentially allows. It makes a mockery of the whole Attack Roll system.

Troacctid

2016-12-15, 02:21 AM

Did not know about the Rule Compendium's phrasing. Note that the Rules Compendium does not actually rule that it is not atomic - it simply doesn't state that it is. I don't know if this is enough to remove the phrase from the Players Handbook pg 160.
Generally, the Rules Compendium supersedes any sources that predated it. I don't know if you could come up with an argument for whether it doesn't in this case, but why would you want to intentionally look for a dysfunctional reading of the text when there's a perfectly valid reading that isn't dysfunctional? Go with the reading that's sensible and intuitive, not the one that contorts the rules into absurdity, that's what I always say.

Lets assume it is enough. I see problems with just how precise these conditions could get with the supposed limits of your character - including the interrupting of an attack while it occurs, potentially when you get hit. For example: "I ready a tumbled Move Action for 30 feet backwards when an opponent successfully hits me with a melee attack". The trigger is the successful hit with a melee attack. If you rule as going before what triggers it then you essentially get a "Nope, that didn't actually hit" - but only when it would have hit. As long as you can make the tumble check a melee opponent could never hit you (without some way of getting back to you and getting another Standard Action to Attack) - you could still use your Standard Action, of course. Fun.
If you ready your action to Tumble after you get hit, then you Tumble after you get hit. If you ready your action to Tumble before you get hit, then you Tumble before you get hit. Not too complicated.

Aimeryan

2016-12-15, 02:30 AM

Generally, the Rules Compendium supersedes any sources that predated it. I don't know if you could come up with an argument for whether it doesn't in this case, but why would you want to intentionally look for a dysfunctional reading of the text when there's a perfectly valid reading that isn't dysfunctional? Go with the reading that's sensible and intuitive, not the one that contorts the rules into absurdity, that's what I always say.

It supersedes, but unless it says it gets rid of something I don't see that it automatically does so just by omission. I mean, you could argue that there is a lot missing there: Distracting Spellcasters, Counterspelling, etc. So, the RC got rid of that stuff too, then?

Aimeryan

2016-12-15, 02:33 AM

If you ready your action to Tumble after you get hit, then you Tumble after you get hit. If you ready your action to Tumble before you get hit, then you Tumble before you get hit. Not too complicated.

No you don't. Read it again:

Then, any time before your next turn, you can take the readied action in response to those conditions. The action occurs just before whatever triggers it.

So the action occurs just before the hit.

Assuming the interrupted creature is still capable of doing so, it continues its turn once you complete your readied action.

The creature is not capable of hitting you any longer - you are not in range.

~~~

I can see the RC apparent ruling working, but you would likely have to houserule in some limitations if you don't want it to be abused in ways it should not probably function.

Troacctid

2016-12-15, 02:49 AM

No you don't. Read it again:

Then, any time before your next turn, you can take the readied action in response to those conditions. The action occurs just before whatever triggers it.

So the action occurs just before the hit.
If you ready an action to Tumble after being hit, it will trigger after being hit, and you will Tumble before after being hit, i.e. while you are being hit. Which works fine.

Basically, if your intent is to avoid the attack, you can avoid the attack. If your intent is to take the damage first, you can do that too. You set the conditions for your readied action.

Aimeryan

2016-12-15, 02:54 AM

If you ready an action to Tumble after being hit, it will trigger after being hit, and you will Tumble before after being hit, i.e. while you are being hit. Which works fine.

Basically, if your intent is to avoid the attack, you can avoid the attack. If your intent is to take the damage first, you can do that too. You set the conditions for your readied action.

I don't know how to explain this any more clearly - either I am failing to successfully inform you as to what is the case, or you are failing to see it.

Ok, lets try again. If "A" says it occurs before "B" then that means it happens like this:

A ---> B

It does not occur like this:

B ---> A

The readied action is "A" here, and the trigger is "B". The readied action is to 'move', the trigger is 'on a successful hit against me'.

Are you reading this as the trigger being 'sometime (after a successful hit against me)', so that the action can occur before that? That is not what my scenario is stating. I am specifically stating the trigger is THE moment it hits, not some time after. Before the moment means before the hit, not after the hit but before the end of the universe.

Kuu Lightwing

2016-12-15, 03:02 AM

Lets assume it is enough. I see problems with just how precise these conditions could get with the supposed limits of your character - including the interrupting of an attack while it occurs, potentially when you get hit. For example: "I ready a tumbled Move Action for 30 feet backwards when an opponent successfully hits me with a melee attack". The trigger is the successful hit with a melee attack. If you rule as going before what triggers it then you essentially get a "Nope, that didn't actually hit" - but only when it would have hit. As long as you can make the tumble check a melee opponent could never hit you (without some way of getting back to you and getting another Standard Action to Attack) - you could still use your Standard Action, of course. Fun.

I would not rule that you can always perfectly dodge when an opponent would have successfully hit, which this essentially allows. It makes a mockery of the whole Attack Roll system.

First, you never get to use your standard, because you would use it to Ready. If the trigger condition doesn't occur, it's just wasted. So being that specific is not necessary anyways.

Next, that's not terribly useful. You use your Standard Action to negate an attack of one enemy. The second one can hit you just fine. You can't exactly use it to "tank", because you move away each time, so it's like a free bullrush, without a check. Honestly, I only wanted to use it for flavor, for the beginning of the round, to make a dumb enemy get closer to you. To replicate this (http://i.imgur.com/TC6ufGf.gifv) move.

Also, if you use all your standard actions to ready a tumble you do nothing to contribute to the combat, unless you can do that with your Swift and Move actions - because you can't do a full-round or a standard action. So the enemy could just stop going for you and go kill your party instead while you sit there doing nothing. And if there's no party and it's just 1v1 - you can't attack him, and he can't attack you. It's not much different from just running away each round.

Aimeryan

2016-12-15, 03:11 AM

First, you never get to use your standard, because you would use it to Ready. If the trigger condition doesn't occur, it's just wasted. So being that specific is not necessary anyways.

Next, that's not terribly useful. You use your Standard Action to negate an attack of one enemy. The second one can hit you just fine. You can't exactly use it to "tank", because you move away each time, so it's like a free bullrush, without a check. Honestly, I only wanted to use it for flavor, for the beginning of the round, to make a dumb enemy get closer to you. To replicate this (http://i.imgur.com/TC6ufGf.gifv) move.

Also, if you use all your standard actions to ready a tumble you do nothing to contribute to the combat, unless you can do that with your Swift and Move actions - because you can't do a full-round or a standard action. So the enemy could just stop going for you and go kill your party instead while you sit there doing nothing. And if there's no party and it's just 1v1 - you can't attack him, and he can't attack you. It's not much different from just running away each round.

You wouldn't get your Standard Action, that was a mistake on my part (it was used to Ready), which does make it less useful. Instead of a tumble, a 5-foot step back + an Attack (with a greater natural reach or reach weapon) or Spell would still be highly effective with this. The difference between this and the PH ruling is the opponent would not get their action back (although they could carry on the action they were doing, if capable).

Troacctid

2016-12-15, 03:47 AM

I don't know how to explain this any more clearly - either I am failing to successfully inform you as to what is the case, or you are failing to see it.

Ok, lets try again. If "A" says it occurs before "B" then that means it happens like this:

A ---> B

It does not occur like this:

B ---> A

The readied action is "A" here, and the trigger is "B". The readied action is to 'move', the trigger is 'on a successful hit against me'.

Are you reading this as the trigger being 'sometime (after a successful hit against me)', so that the action can occur before that? That is not what my scenario is stating. I am specifically stating the trigger is THE moment it hits, not some time after. Before the moment means before the hit, not after the hit but before the end of the universe.
The point is, you can choose to do it before the attack resolves, or after. What you're describing is all basically a moot point in that context, because the ability to avoid the attack by readying an action to avoid it is not a meaningful exploit.

Also, if you use all your standard actions to ready a tumble you do nothing to contribute to the combat, unless you can do that with your Swift and Move actions - because you can't do a full-round or a standard action. So the enemy could just stop going for you and go kill your party instead while you sit there doing nothing. And if there's no party and it's just 1v1 - you can't attack him, and he can't attack you. It's not much different from just running away each round.
That's not entirely true. If you're successfully trading actions with the enemy and occupying their time, you've pretty much got the equivalent of a brain lock going, right? That's not too shabby.

Kuu Lightwing

2016-12-15, 03:53 AM

That's not entirely true. If you're successfully trading actions with the enemy and occupying their time, you've pretty much got the equivalent of a brain lock going, right? That's not too shabby.

But unless you have an ability to actually force the enemy to attack you instead of anyone else (and one that works as a swift action), they can always chose to ignore you and your readied action. They can decide to cast a spell or do whatever else they want.

Also, Saeomon rates Brain Lock as red, so that might not be that good either :)

Aimeryan

2016-12-15, 04:20 AM

The point is, you can choose to do it before the attack resolves, or after. What you're describing is all basically a moot point in that context, because the ability to avoid the attack by readying an action to avoid it is not a meaningful exploit.

Not only can I choose that, I can choose to have the attack resolve and then say "no no no" if I don't like it. As the for the avoiding itself, my point with the RC rules - if it does actually negate the atomic part - is that the opponent has now lost his action, where as with the PH he does not. That is a fairly significant change. You can still get an attack/spell while doing this.

I mean, if we want to go silly then "I ready a 5-foot step and spell [of whatever] for whenever an enemy does something". Oh, you were doing something and I did not like the result? Lets use my ready action before it then.

Kuu Lightwing

2016-12-15, 04:37 AM

Not only can I choose that, I can choose to have the attack resolve and then say "no no no" if I don't like it. As the for the avoiding itself, my point with the RC rules - if it does actually negate the atomic part - is that the opponent has now lost his action, where as with the PH he does not. That is a fairly significant change. You can still get an attack/spell while doing this.

I mean, if we want to go silly then "I ready a 5-foot step and spell [of whatever] for whenever an enemy does something". Oh, you were doing something and I did not like the result? Lets use my ready action before it then.

But then the enemy does something entirely different and you waste your five-foot step and your standard. That's a fair trade. You can't take back your readied action, so they can't take back their action if it triggered yours.

Aimeryan

2016-12-15, 04:49 AM

But then the enemy does something entirely different and you waste your five-foot step and your standard. That's a fair trade. You can't take back your readied action, so they can't take back their action if it triggered yours.

No, I meant literally, 'something'. My issue is that the conditions to trigger are not specified to how and what they apply to, so a condition could literally include everything.

Furthermore:

Then, any time before your next turn, you can take the readied action in response to those conditions.

So, I am not obliged to take it on the first opportunity and I do not lose it until the next turn. The last point I was making here was that the ready action takes place before whatever triggered it. So you put it altogether and you get something that can trigger on anything, when you choose, that allows you to know the opponent's result and then insert an action before it - potentially also making the opponent's action now worthless.

The PH rules at least allowed the opponent not to show all their hand as well as allowing them to change their action.

Edit: I also just noticed that by RAW it doesn't state you can only take the readied action once...

Kuu Lightwing

2016-12-15, 05:33 AM

No, I meant literally, 'something'. My issue is that the conditions to trigger are not specified to how and what they apply to, so a condition could literally include everything.

Furthermore:

Then, any time before your next turn, you can take the readied action in response to those conditions.

So, I am not obliged to take it on the first opportunity and I do not lose it until the next turn. The last point I was making here was that the ready action takes place before whatever triggered it. So you put it altogether and you get something that can trigger on anything, when you choose, that allows you to know the opponent's result and then insert an action before it - potentially also making the opponent's action now worthless.

The PH rules at least allowed the opponent not to show all their hand as well as allowing them to change their action.

Edit: I also just noticed that by RAW it doesn't state you can only take the readied action once...

I don't think that's a valid declaration of a readied action. Otherwise Synchronicity wouldn't exist.

Also, why can't I take back my Ready action then? If enemy casts a spell and I distract him with an attack, or a ray, that would also make his action and his spell worthless. Why is that a fair game, but Standard for an attack is not? Or would you allow a distracted spellcaster to change his mind "okay I won't cast the spell then, I'll use Healing Belt to heal myself"?

Also, why would you allow to disrupt an attack with Abrupt Jaunt, which doesn't require nearly as much investment in terms of actions in combat, compared to ready, but not with a readied standard action?

As for multiple actions:

Ready lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun.

"An" action.

Aimeryan

2016-12-15, 06:10 AM

I don't think that's a valid declaration of a readied action. Otherwise Synchronicity wouldn't exist.

Synchronicity has other uses, mostly with linked power. Still, I get your point, but then it isn't like 3.5e doesn't have its "bugs". Furthermore, the wording of your condition may not be quite as well thought out as you thought it was - Synchronicity avoids this issue.

Also, why can't I take back my Ready action then? If enemy casts a spell and I distract him with an attack, or a ray, that would also make his action and his spell worthless. Why is that a fair game, but Standard for an attack is not? Or would you allow a distracted spellcaster to change his mind "okay I won't cast the spell then, I'll use Healing Belt to heal myself"?

With Distracting and Counterspelling there is a check involved; its not an automatic fail. Tumbling away before the opponent attacks gives the opponent no check to make to try to avoid failing in hitting you. How is that fair?

Also, why would you allow to disrupt an attack with Abrupt Jaunt, which doesn't require nearly as much investment in terms of actions in combat, compared to ready, but not with a readied standard action?

Abrupt Jaunt is a spell; I'm not surprised there are spells that are better than mundane stuff in 3.5e - are you?

As for multiple actions:

"An" action.

Exactly; not "a single action". Or, "only one action". Also:

Then, any time before your next turn, you can take the readied action in response to those conditions.

So, any time, in response to those conditions, you can take the readied action.

If I said to you "any time, in response to an attack, you can attempt to dodge" you wouldn't think - "oh, I dodged an attack already, so I can't attempt to do so again!". That would require "one time, in response to an attack, you can attempt to dodge".

Kuu Lightwing

2016-12-15, 07:33 AM

Synchronicity has other uses, mostly with linked power. Still, I get your point, but then it isn't like 3.5e doesn't have its "bugs". Furthermore, the wording of your condition may not be quite as well thought out as you thought it was - Synchronicity avoids this issue.

Well, anyways, even if your trigger is "when enemy does something" you have to specify what exactly are you doing in response. Sometimes, your response could invalidate the other action, sometimes it couldn't. That vague condition is not much less of a problem with atomic actions.

With Distracting and Counterspelling there is a check involved; its not an automatic fail. Tumbling away before the opponent attacks gives the opponent no check to make to try to avoid failing in hitting you. How is that fair?

There's actually a check. A Tumble check to avoid AoO. Yea, it's kinda easy to auto-pass it, but that's the problem with Tumble skill itself. It's also pretty easy to force a Concentration check to auto-fail with damage, especially with a damaging spell or melee attack.

Abrupt Jaunt is a spell; I'm not surprised there are spells that are better than mundane stuff in 3.5e - are you?

It's an ACF. And I don't know why are you willing to let the ACF fly, but don't want a mundane option, which is much worse in terms of action economy, work in a similar way.

Exactly; not "a single action". Or, "only one action". Also:

Then, any time before your next turn, you can take the readied action in response to those conditions.

So, any time, in response to those conditions, you can take the readied action.

If I said to you "any time, in response to an attack, you can attempt to dodge" you wouldn't think - "oh, I dodged an attack already, so I can't attempt to do so again!". That would require "one time, in response to an attack, you can attempt to dodge".
Eh. I do think it's implied there, but I'm not sure I want to argue about it. Because if it is not, regardless of whether we are using atomic interpretation or not, I could say "When somebody takes an action, I attack the guy next to me" and ask your teammates to talk with free actions. Which would be a bit ridiculous.

Aimeryan

2016-12-16, 02:53 AM

Just to clarify Kuu (although I think you already know this), I'm not suggesting these things as if I would rule that way, I'm just playing devil's advocate in order to debate the flaws.

The point I've been making is that the RAW is simply not bounded - it sort of says "you make up the conditions - hopefully your DM thinks they are fair". I think the only real solution, as a DM, is to make up your own boundaries to the conditions and then be consistent.

My own rulings would be to stick to atomic actions, unless you want every commoner to be the Flash (able to move 30 feet in a nanosecond - or faster!). I would allow the specified exceptions in the PH (Distracting, etc.), as well as add "Readying against Movement" as another exception.

Readying against Movement would probably be along the lines of:

You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and a character or square as a condition. The condition is met whenever the specified character moves into a new square or if the specified square is occupied by a creature. Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition being met, if still capable of doing so. The action need not be against the triggering creature. The action, if taken, occurs the moment the condition is met.

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.

Assuming they are still capable of doing so, characters may continue their actions once you complete your readied action.

Your initiative result changes, as describe in the Initiative Consequences of Readying section.