Help with Turn Order & Ready Action

[Decstarr]

Hi guys,

in our last session the following scenario happened:

Bard used fear on group of enemies, which all failed the save and therefore ran away until they were out of his vision. Group fought other enemies and eventually one of the feared enemies managed to break the fear and rushed back in and attacked the bard. The bard dropped concentration, not knowing of course how many of the enemies had broken loose and used his ready action to cast fear again if more enemies come around the corner.

The problem I was facing now was: The initially feared 4 enemies were all of the same type. Therefore, like I always do if its several enemies, I rolled Initiative once for them as group and used them 1 by 1 once it was their turn. By my understanding, the first one of them who'd come around the corner would trigger the Bard's ready action and would be the only one affected by fear - minus the enemies who are already there, of course. But the player playing the Bard insisted that it'd be a "they all move simultaneously since they share a turn" situation and therefore should all be affected. I get the reasoning behind this, but IF one rules that their turn is indeed happening simultaneously, I can see this ruining synergies with things like e.g. pack tactics, since if you treat it as simultaneous movement, the creeps wouldn't benefit from one of them moving next to a PC.

I'm curious how other people handle this. I got half a mind to houserule that the movement indeed takes place simultaneously but their actions are 1 after the other.

TL;DR: Several creeps of same type, 1 Initiative roll: Do they move and act "simultaneously" - e.g. all being hit by the Ready Action Fireball - or 1 by 1?

[Coffee_Dragon]

I don't think "sharing a turn" is strictly revelant here, it's just a "can we switch abstractions for this one thing, because it'd be to my advantage" appeal, and as such is going to be a matter of DM adjudication (is it reasonable/fun for this one situation) and system use (do we want to open up this can of cherrypicking abstractions). If you treat the enemies as running around the corner at the same time it's not because they share initiative count - that still doesn't make them act at the same time in the 5E system - but because you've chosen to suspend the turn-based abstraction, as players can.

[Arial Black]

The Ready Action requires both an 'action' and a 'trigger'.

Don't forget that when the trigger happens, the Readier can choose to take the action OR choose NOT to take the action.

If the trigger happens again while the Ready action has not been used yet, the readier faces the same choice.

So the readier isn't forced to cast fear at the first sight of a baddy. He can wait until (what he believes is) the last one runs into view.

[mephnick]

He needed to set a more specific trigger if his goal was to get multiple targets again. You can't just say "when the enemies come back", you need to actually say something like "when at least a couple of them are in range" or something to that effect. If a player is even remotely vague about a ready action I make them restate it or I disallow it.

[Tanarii]

PHB suggests (page 189) that the Adam decides the order of actions between monsters with tied initiative count monsters. Strong implication is they are not resolved simultaneously, even if you rolled one initiative for a group, but rather in an order of your choice. Which can vary from round to round.

That said, how to resolve the trigger depends on how they worded it and how strict you require them to be. If they made it vague like 'if more enemies come around the corner' and you allowed that, he could presumably hold it for any one of the enemies, not necessarily using it on the first. Of course, if they're coming one at a time he might have trouble catching them all in the area of effect without also targeting allies.

[Arcangel4774]

fear[/i] at the first sight of a baddy. He can wait until (what he believes is) the last one runs into view.

I think this thought works best as it allows the intended use the player wants, but puts any mistakes on him gambling for a better outcome. If, say 3/4 run into view and he's wating for the 4th, you could have the 4th be cautious, and not come out. He didn't use his reaction when he got the chance so nothing happened.

[GPS]

I think this thought works best as it allows the intended use the player wants, but puts any mistakes on him gambling for a better outcome. If, say 3/4 run into view and he's wating for the 4th, you could have the 4th be cautious, and not come out. He didn't use his reaction when he got the chance so nothing happened.
Well, there's another factor influencing this. Fear is a leveled spell, and in the readied action rules, spell slots are expended whether or not you actually use the reaction when it is triggered.

[Arcangel4774]

Well, there's another factor influencing this. Fear is a leveled spell, and in the readied action rules, spell slots are expended whether or not you actually use the reaction when it is triggered.

Huh. That went right over my head, the gambling is much steeper than i thought

[Decstarr]

Thanks for the input so far! The question actually arose when he umreadied his action and stated 'when the enemies come back' to which I wanted to know how many. Then the discussion started. The player isn't one who'd gamble for his own advantage normally so I just wanted to get several thoughts on the issue.

I think the suggested course of letting the player gamble when he wants to use it is the most reasonable since it is most 'realistic' and would fit my general idea of a 'real' battle scenario the best. And we totally forgot about the spell level thing. Since the PC had no way of knowing how many enemies were in the other room - could've been others but the ones he scared away the first time - he'd have to make the gamble anyways.

Thanks guys, as usual, really helpful!