Attack speed & counterattacking

[HamsterKun]

If two characters are to try to attack each other, one as an action and the other as a reaction, is there anything that determines which of the two successfully delivered the blow?

I’m saying this because someone with a light and/or finesse weapon would likely be able to (given enough reaction time) be able to intercept an attack from a heavier weapon that would take a bit longer to attack with.

[Greywander]

It... doesn't work like that.

Character A gets to take their turn. They decide to attack Character B. A makes their attack roll, and either hits and does damage, or misses. End of story.

Now it's Character B's turn. B decides to attack A. B makes their attack roll, and either hits and does damage, or misses. End of story.


I’m saying this because someone with a light and/or finesse weapon would likely be able to (given enough reaction time) be able to intercept an attack from a heavier weapon that would take a bit longer to attack with.
The Defensive Duelist feat and and Dual Wielder feat each account for this in their own way. Defensive Duelist lets you boost your AC against one attack as a reaction if you're using a finesse weapon, while Dual Wielder gives you a passive AC boost as long as you're wielding two weapons. Normally, both weapons need to be light for you to dual wield them, but Dual Wielder also removes this requirement.

It doesn't really need to be more complex than this. AC represents your ability to resist an attack, and then each character makes their own attack on their respective turns. You can flavor it as an attack-counterattack, but mechanically you're both just making normal attacks on your own turns.

[Unoriginal]

If two characters are to try to attack each other, one as an action and the other as a reaction, is there anything that determines which of the two successfully delivered the blow?

IF someone is capable of attacking as a reaction (for example by taking the Ready action), then both successfully deliver their blows provided they beat the other's AC.



I’m saying this because someone with a light and/or finesse weapon would likely be able to (given enough reaction time) be able to intercept an attack from a heavier weapon that would take a bit longer to attack with.

Not really? If you're talking about reality, having an heavier weapon makes it less likely you get intercepted. A one-handed sword can hardly parry a two-handed battleaxe's blow.

If you're talking about the game, aside from the Parry ability or similar, there is no real way to intercept an attack.

D&D 5e isn't a reality simulator, and the game designers made so you can't just deny someone their attack just because you can attack too.

[Lunali]

IF someone is capable of attacking as a reaction (for example by taking the Ready action), then both successfully deliver their blows provided they beat the other's AC.

Not really, unless you houserule it otherwise, one of them gets first attack and if their attack in some way stops the other's, the second attack doesn't go off.

As for which goes first, the reaction attack happens after the trigger for the reaction, so it depends on the trigger. If they attack when an enemy moves into range, they get the first attack. If their attack triggers when the enemy makes the attack, the enemy gets the first attack.

[Unoriginal]

Not really, unless you houserule it otherwise, one of them gets first attack and if their attack in some way stops the other's, the second attack doesn't go off.

Well yes, I was assuming it was a situation where one attack landing didn't stop the other.

Point is that it's "if two people attack each other as an action-reaction, then neither attack is inherently denied".

Of course if you kill your opponent they won't be able to riposte, for example.

[GreyBlack]

If two characters are to try to attack each other, one as an action and the other as a reaction, is there anything that determines which of the two successfully delivered the blow?

I’m saying this because someone with a light and/or finesse weapon would likely be able to (given enough reaction time) be able to intercept an attack from a heavier weapon that would take a bit longer to attack with.

The only way this could work is if someone readied their action to attack someone who attacked them. In this case, the readied action would trigger first, regardless of weapon size.

If you would like, however, you can mine 1st edition's weapon speed charts to determine who would hit first. That would require significantly increasing the complexity of the initiative system, but not impossible.

[Contrast]

The only way this could work is if someone readied their action to attack someone who attacked them. In this case, the readied action would trigger first, regardless of weapon size.

The general rule for reactions is that unless otherwise specified they occur after the trigger (DMG p252). The Ready action does not have any such specification so the normal assumption is it would occur after the trigger (so the readied attack occurs after the normal attack).

You could argue that you could specify in your ready trigger something that would allow the trigger to occur prior to something else happening but that's a discussion a player will need to have with their DM.

[Tiadoppler]

I don't allow separate attacks to happen simultaneously (obviously some abilities have multiple simultaneous effects). If a player readies their action for


"when I'm hit by a melee attack"

then their action happens right after the 'hit' effects (damage+whatever else). On the other hand, if a player readies their action for


"when I'm declared the target of a melee attack"

then their action happens before the triggering melee attack is rolled. In the former case, the triggering attack happens first, followed by the readied action. In the latter case, the readied action occurs before the triggering attack is rolled.

Edit:


You could argue that you could specify in your ready trigger something that would allow the trigger to occur prior to something else happening but that's a discussion a player will need to have with their DM.

Personally, I wouldn't allow a readied action to happen before a trigger. Causality is important. The player should think of a different trigger that is likely to happen earlier. You can't respond to things that haven't happened yet.

[Contrast]

Personally, I wouldn't allow a readied action to happen before a trigger. Causality is important. The player should think of a different trigger that is likely to happen earlier. You can't respond to things that haven't happened yet.

To clarify what I meant - Tim and Bob are standing next to each other. Tim readies an attack with the trigger 'if I see Bob go to attack me, I'll attack him'. Bob attacks.

Normal rules are that reaction occurs after trigger so Bob attacks then Tim.

Tim could argue 'well actually my trigger was seeing him starting to move to attack me, not actually attacking me and he starts to move before he attacks me so my trigger resolves before the attack'.

Some DMs will respond to that with an 'Ok sure I guess' and some will respond with 'the ready action doesn't specify so it happens after'.

Depends if your DM is interested in playing the 'careful wording' game of rules interpretation or not really. I wasn't trying to imply anything about causality just the acceptability of triggers like 'when I see something about to happen, just beforehand I'll...'.

[ProsecutorGodot]

To clarify what I meant - Tim and Bob are standing next to each other. Tim readies an attack with the trigger 'if I see Bob go to attack me, I'll attack him'. Bob attacks.

Normal rules are that reaction occurs after trigger so Bob attacks then Tim.

Tim could argue 'well actually my trigger was seeing him starting to move to attack me, not actually attacking me and he starts to move before he attacks me so my trigger resolves before the attack'.

Some DMs will respond to that with an 'Ok sure I guess' and some will respond with 'the ready action doesn't specify so it happens after'.

Depends if your DM is interested in playing the 'careful wording' game of rules interpretation or not really. I wasn't trying to imply anything about causality just the acceptability of triggers like 'when I see something about to happen, just beforehand I'll...'.

There have been long and lengthy discussions in the past about whether or not you could ready an action in response to a trigger "starting". For spells, it's a bit nebulous on whether that trigger is acceptable.

For attacks, it's not. Making an Attack is a clearly defined process where "choosing a target" and "resolving an attack" happen in the same chain of events.

Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.

1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.

2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.

3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.

If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.
Since reactions must be made through an event perceptible to your character (not the player) by the time you're aware in the game world that an attack is going to be made on you, mechanically it has resolved already.

You're free to rule otherwise though.

[Greywander]

Normal rules are that reaction occurs after trigger so Bob attacks then Tim.
For most existing reactions, yes, typically the trigger completes fully, and then the reaction occurs afterwards. Exceptions are usually clear, such as Defensive Duelist or Shield.

If the player is readying an action, though, it seems sensible that they could specify a reaction to go off before the trigger. This, however, would be dependent on them being able to observe the trigger in time to react to it before it was fully carried out. So you can't say something like, "I ready an action to move out of the way if the trap gets triggered." You won't know the trap is about to be triggered until it's already been triggered, so you can't possibly move out of the way fast enough to avoid getting caught in it.

On the other hand, if your trigger is, "When the enemy is about to attack me, I'm going to shove them backwards." Well, you can see the enemy running towards you and winding up for a swing, so it's reasonable that you'd be able to anticipate it quickly enough to react before the attack happened. However, the DM can decide that you might misinterpret what's going on; perhaps that creature wasn't attacking you, they were attacking another enemy standing behind you. Or maybe they were about to cast Cure Wounds instead of Shocking Grasp, but you couldn't tell the difference and hit them in the face while they were trying to help you. Most of the time this shouldn't be an issue, since the enemy is likely doing exactly what you expect (i.e. attacking you), but it might screw you over a couple of times.

If there's ever any doubt, you can always resolve the action and reaction simultaneously. For example, if two creatures are attacking one another and one drops to 0 HP, it still gets to make it's attack before dropping. Or, if one of them paralyzes the other with their attack, the paralyzed creature still makes their attack, and then gets paralyzed. If dealing with Extra Attacks, the additional attacks are subsequent to the triggering attack, and thus would definitely occur after the reaction and/or trigger.

[GreyBlack]

The general rule for reactions is that unless otherwise specified they occur after the trigger (DMG p252). The Ready action does not have any such specification so the normal assumption is it would occur after the trigger (so the readied attack occurs after the normal attack).

You could argue that you could specify in your ready trigger something that would allow the trigger to occur prior to something else happening but that's a discussion a player will need to have with their DM.

That's fair enough. I'm used to my players wording their triggers carefully, so I'd expect a trigger like, "When an enemy combatant moves into range to attack me, I'm going to attack them." If it's worse worded differently, like, "I'm going to counterattack the first enemy who attacks me," then it would go after.

Sorry, that was my thought process.

[GreyBlack]

To clarify what I meant - Tim and Bob are standing next to each other. Tim readies an attack with the trigger 'if I see Bob go to attack me, I'll attack him'. Bob attacks.

Normal rules are that reaction occurs after trigger so Bob attacks then Tim.

Tim could argue 'well actually my trigger was seeing him starting to move to attack me, not actually attacking me and he starts to move before he attacks me so my trigger resolves before the attack'.

Some DMs will respond to that with an 'Ok sure I guess' and some will respond with 'the ready action doesn't specify so it happens after'.

Depends if your DM is interested in playing the 'careful wording' game of rules interpretation or not really. I wasn't trying to imply anything about causality just the acceptability of triggers like 'when I see something about to happen, just beforehand I'll...'.

In your example, it depends on how the trigger is worded. If it's the wording you gave ("if I see Bob go to attack me, I'll attack him") then it happens after the trigger, because you wouldn't see Bob attacking until after he attacks by RAW. If the wording was more like, "If Bob moves into my melee range to attack," the movement ends, then the counterattack happens, then the regular attack happens.

Again, if you want more realism here, you can look at the old 1st edition rules for weapon speed and modify them accordingly, but be warned that is a rabbit hole that 5e is not prepared for out of the box.

[OverLordOcelot]

Again, if you want more realism here, you can look at the old 1st edition rules for weapon speed and modify them accordingly, but be warned that is a rabbit hole that 5e is not prepared for out of the box.

Actually you can't; if you want more complexity and less realism then go to the old 1st edition rules, but expect the level of realism to drop. In actual fights, the person with a longer weapon will generally hit first, being able to land a hit while your opponent has to get closer to counter is a huge advantage. Watch some HEMA or SCA matches on youtube to get an idea of how reach works for real combatants (and then realize that safety and scoring rules hinder the longer reach person more than they would in a real fight), someone armed with a dagger should not expect to land their attacks before the person with a longsword, mace, zweihander, spear, or other longer weapon.

[NaughtyTiger]

More DMs complaining that a guy who wins init and conditionally take an action is too strong, must be nerfed.



Since reactions must be made through an event perceptible to your character (not the player) by the time you're aware in the game world that an attack is going to be made on you, mechanically it has resolved already.


A character who is poised to strike (Ready an action with higher initiative) when the orc starts his attack can perceive the orc start swinging its sword or pull back to throw its spear or draw the bow.

You are claiming that the mechanical process of selecting a target, determining to Hit, and rolling dice cannot be interrupted by the mechanical process of Ready Action.
I don't see that claim expressed in the rules. The trigger isn't a mechanical thing (he chooses his target), it is a real-world thing (he draws the bow and aims)
I don't see it in the narrative either. Tim has fast reflexes, that is why he won the initiative.

edit for my intent: I don't see that by RAW, the mechanical process of selecting a target -> roll to hit is not interruptable. it is a reasonable assertion, just as is the assertion that a character can perceive the start of an attack and react before his opponent complete it.

[Phoenix042]

For attacks, it's not. Making an Attack is a clearly defined process where "choosing a target" and "resolving an attack" happen in the same chain of events.

This. Very much this. While any DM is free to rule otherwise, I'd argue that raw, you can't ready with the trigger "he chooses me as a target" because that's a part of a single process, the attack itself, and you can't divide that attack up.

By contrast, you could absolutely specify that you ready an attack against any enemy who moves to within your reach with a melee weapon drawn, or similar wording. In this case, you're taking a gamble on whether or not they're actually planning to attack you, but you'd make your attack before theirs if they were in any case, because their attack isn't what triggers your readied action; their movement does, and that happens before they start making an attack.

[Hypno]

The way this is represented is that often times people using light/finesse weapons have a better dexterity mod, representing their quick reflexes. So they have a better mod for initiative.

[NaughtyTiger]

If two characters are to try to attack each other, one as an action and the other as a reaction, is there anything that determines which of the two successfully delivered the blow?

I’m saying this because someone with a light and/or finesse weapon would likely be able to (given enough reaction time) be able to intercept an attack from a heavier weapon that would take a bit longer to attack with.

Since combat is happening at the same time, initiative decides who attacks first (most of the time)

If you are trying to replicate the faster attacks with light weapons, consider speed factor initiative in the DMG: cantrips, daggers, and halflings are faster than minotaurs with a maul. (for me, I run it without any dice, modifiers only at the start of the round. i find it speeds combat)

[OverLordOcelot]

One thing I don't understand in all of the argument about readying to attack someone if they attack you - what's the advantage of doing this? Why don't you just ready an attack for "if this enemy steps near me" or "if anyone hostile steps near me"? That would give the same result in game without any of the controversy. I think that if you're worried about the results of a readied action, but there's another readied action that would provide the same benefit without the controversy, let it work like the non controversial actin and move on.


If you are trying to replicate the faster attacks with light weapons, consider speed factor initiative in the DMG: cantrips, daggers, and halflings are faster than minotaurs with a maul. (for me, I run it without any dice, modifiers only at the start of the round. i find it speeds combat)

Consider it if you must, but consider also that it doesn't reflect reality. Make a foam dagger and a foam maul, and have the foam maul user and foam dagger user try to swing at each other. The foam maul user is almost always going to get in the first hit unless there is a huge mismatch in physical ability.

[Contrast]

One thing I don't understand in all of the argument about readying to attack someone if they attack you - what's the advantage of doing this? Why don't you just ready an attack for "if this enemy steps near me" or "if anyone hostile steps near me"? That would give the same result in game without any of the controversy. I think that if you're worried about the results of a readied action, but there's another readied action that would provide the same benefit without the controversy, let it work like the non controversial actin and move on.

Neither of your triggers works if you're already in melee.

The situations where you'd want to ready rather than just attack in those situations are admittedly quite niche but then again its an RPG and players often don't do the optimal thing because of reasons.

An example might be two players trying to 'convince' a cultist to reveal the secret to stopping the ritual while other players hold off the remaining cultists. Player A is intimidating while Player B has him grappled and readies an action to stop him if he tries anything.

[NaughtyTiger]

Consider it if you must, but consider also that it doesn't reflect reality. Make a foam dagger and a foam maul, and have the foam maul user and foam dagger user try to swing at each other. The foam maul user is almost always going to get in the first hit unless there is a huge mismatch in physical ability.

Not sure if you were rocking the sarcasm or not.

Foam maul doesn't have the weight of a real maul, or the damage of a real maul.
Real maul would have a much lower acceleration than a real dagger.

[furby076]

"when I'm declared the target of a melee attack"

then their action happens before the triggering melee attack is rolled. In the former case, the triggering attack happens first, followed by the readied action. In the latter case, the readied action occurs before the triggering attack is rolled.

Unless a (n)pc says, in game "i declare you as my enemy to die", then there is no in game option to represent when you are declared. You find out when the weapon is being hurled at you. So, better to state "when i am being attacked"

[ProsecutorGodot]

A character who is poised to strike (Ready an action with higher initiative) when the orc starts his attack can perceive the orc start swinging its sword or pull back to throw its spear or draw the bow.

(1)You are claiming that the mechanical process of selecting a target, determining to Hit, and rolling dice cannot be interrupted by the mechanical process of Ready Action.
(2)I don't see that claim expressed in the rules. The trigger isn't a mechanical thing (he chooses his target), it is a real-world thing (he draws the bow and aims)
(3)I don't see it in the narrative either. Tim has fast reflexes, that is why he won the initiative

(1) Yes I am, because those mechanical effects are not perceivable to your character. Your character is only able to perceive an attack being targeted against them after it has resolved.
(2) The last line I bolded from the rules "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack." You have not been attacked unless an attack roll has been made. This is a distinction that has caused its fair share of issues within the rules (Magic Missile and Pre Errata Sanctuary just to name a few) but it's consistent.
(3) Tim can roll a high initiative and still be surprised in the first round of combat. Narrative doesn't have a whole lot to do with the outcome when the rules make exceptions. Tim having fast reflexes doesn't automatically allow him to supercede the guidelines set out in the PHB. Separate the narrative from the game rules, except where it tells you that they are meant to key off eachother. For example, when Ready Action tells you that your trigger must be a perceivable event and that your reaction will occur afterwards.

This is also explained in the "How to Play" guidelines where the DM decides the outcome of the narrative the players are trying to achieve, using the rules if they fit or making it work in the best interest of the players if it doesn't. It also makes specific mention that Combat is designed to be more rigid in its flow, which is why only the third (and actually perceivable) part of Making an Attack is considered to be an attack.

You are 100% allowed to rule differently, but in the instance of "making an attack" there is no suitable trigger that will allow you to attack before they hit you with the absolute certainty that they were planning to attack you. You can react to their movement or to their weapon being drawn or even to their battle shout but "when they start attacking me" is not acceptable, if your goal is to strike first.

On the italicized note I also disagree. Your reflexes gave you the chance to act first, choosing to respond to their actions both mechanically and narratively delays your ability to react. Your opportunity to be faster was lost when you hesitated to act. I'm not at all surprised however that someone would argue having a higher dexterity bonus could let you bend the rules to your whims, Dexterity is the best stat in the game after all so it should affect your mental acuity as well as your physical.

To summarize, as clearly as I can, through the default rules you cannot preempt an attack using the Ready Action. If you set your trigger to "if I am attacked" you will first be attacked and then respond. You are free to rule differently and I would encourage you to do so if that is in the best interests of your table. No one is telling you that you must follow the rules, someone asked for an explanation and your disagreement with the explanation does not immediately invalidate it. Play the game the way you enjoy it, understand that others enjoy it differently. I am aware that the last sentence smacks of irony, I'm telling this to myself as much as anyone else.

[Tiadoppler]

(1) Yes I am, because those mechanical effects are not perceivable to your character. Your character is only able to perceive an attack being targeted against them after it has resolved.

*snip*

To summarize, as clearly as I can, through the default rules you cannot preempt an attack using the Ready Action. If you set your trigger to "if I am attacked" you will first be attacked and then respond. You are free to rule differently and I would encourage you to do so if that is in the best interests of your table. No one is telling you that you must follow the rules, someone asked for an explanation and your disagreement with the explanation does not immediately invalidate it. Play the game the way you enjoy it, understand that others enjoy it differently. I am aware that the last sentence smacks of irony, I'm telling this to myself as much as anyone else.

(Edit: Oopsy, I was wrong about this. Most reactions cannot preempt attacks retroactively. Shield and Cutting Words are a special kind of reaction - DMG 252. I still think that it's a valid option to make a reaction to an event prior to an attack, but I acknowledge that it's not as straight-forward as 'Reactions can preempt attacks'.)
I respectfully disagree. A readied action is a reaction. Reactions can preempt attacks. The phrasing for Shield or Cutting Words (for example) suggests that the order of events violates causality:

Step 3: Your spell/insult prevents the attack from hitting
Step 1: Attack hits Attack misses
Step 2: In response to being hit, you cast a spell/shout an insult

If, by RAW, an insult can travel back in time to shake somebody's confidence during his backswing, I see no reason that another reaction could not do the same thing:

Step 3: Your sword blow kills your opponent mid-swing
Step 1: Attack hits Attack misses
Step 2: In response to being hit, you swing your readied sword at your foe.

My personal preference is to modify the description to avoid breaking time itself:

Step 1: Opponent turns to you and raises his sword to strike
Step 2: Your readied sword thrusts forward into his heart
Step 3: Your opponent dies, toppling backwards. He never gets a chance to roll his attack

I understand that there's no clear RAI on this specific subject (re:Readied Actions and parts of an attack), but the RAW that a reaction can interrupt and prevent an attack is quite explicit.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I respectfully disagree. A readied action is a reaction. Reactions can preempt attacks. The phrasing for Shield or Cutting Words (for example) suggests that the order of events violates causality:
SNIP
I understand that there's no clear RAI on this specific subject (re:Readied Actions and parts of an attack), but the RAW that a reaction can interrupt and prevent an attack is quite explicit.

All of those specific reactions you mentioned say when and how they are used. Ready Action says it happens after. The way other reactions work is not permission to use Ready Action the same way.

Shield requires that the attack has already resolved "a reaction which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell" and has further wording to allow the outcome of the step 2 modifiers to change "including against the triggering attack"

Cutting Words also requires for you to use it on step 3 "When a creature that you can see within 60 feet of you makes an attack roll/damage roll" and doesn't actually interrupt the flow at all, it simply adds a further modifier between "make an attack roll" and "on a hit, roll damage". It has its own specific interaction with this chain of events. Remember, one of the core rules of every aspect of DND is that Specific beats General.

And you are correct that reactions can interrupt the steps in Making an Attack. Ready Action, however, is not such a reaction, it has no opportunity to do so with how it is worded. The only timing we have as reference is "after the perceivable trigger has occurred" which, following the more rigid rules structure of combat, means that you can only perceive being attacked once the attack has been rolled and determined to be a hit or miss. Steps 1 and 2 are purely mechanical.

I feel the need to repeat, I am only arguing this from a strictly RAW standpoint. There's nothing wrong with including your own rulings on determining whether someone glancing/aiming their weapon in your direction in combat is an acceptable trigger for "they are definitely starting to attack me and nothing else". In fact, I think it would be a good use of some passive skills. Passive skills tend not to get a lot of love and using a passive insight score as a threat detector is something I would like to test.

[NaughtyTiger]

(1) Yes I am, because those mechanical effects are not perceivable to your character. Your character is only able to perceive an attack being targeted against them after it has resolved.

(2) The last line I bolded from the rules "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack." You have not been attacked unless an attack roll has been made. This is a distinction that has caused its fair share of issues within the rules (Magic Missile and Pre Errata Sanctuary just to name a few) but it's consistent.

You are blurring the perception of the player and the character.
So if Kevin (player at your table) says "I will attack if we are attacked", who said that Kevin, or his character, Kronk?
Since Kronk doesn't know about attack rolls or other rules, clearly Kronk will consider that Vorpal the Destroyer launching a fireball at the party is an attack.
If Kevin said it, did he mean "any act of aggression" or did he mean "if Vorpal makes an attack roll"? If a DM requires that a player and a character to use strict language rather than intent, then you are playing against an adversarial DM.




(3) Tim can roll a high initiative and still be surprised in the first round of combat. Narrative doesn't have a whole lot to do with the outcome when the rules make exceptions. Tim having fast reflexes doesn't automatically allow him to supercede the guidelines set out in the PHB.


Yep, we agree. I didn't think it was necessary to list an exception (surprise) that neither you nor the OP included in the message. But yes, there are exceptions.




Separate the narrative from the game rules, except where it tells you that they are meant to key off eachother. For example, when Ready Action tells you that your trigger must be a perceivable event and that your reaction will occur afterwards.

The event must be perceivable to whom though. As I stated, the character can perceive the sword start swinging, the bow being drawn....
The player can perceive the individual steps for selecting of a target, the roll. we know this because there are specific abilities that affect the individual steps.



in the instance of "making an attack" there is no suitable trigger that will allow you to attack before they hit you with the absolute certainty that they were planning to attack you. You can react to their movement or to their weapon being drawn or even to their battle shout but "when they start attacking me" is not acceptable, if your goal is to strike first.

2 parties are facing off (no surprise) but combat hasn't started yet. goblin yells Breyarch, targets the barbarian, and makes an attack roll.
this is an example where the fast elf can act after the goblin started her attack but before she finishes it.



On the italicized note I also disagree. Your reflexes gave you the chance to act first, choosing to respond to their actions both mechanically and narratively delays your ability to react. Your opportunity to be faster was lost when you hesitated to act.

Now this one is interesting.

So Kregath and Vorpal are facing off, waiting for the other to start something. Vorpal rears back to swing his hammer. Roll initiative. Kregath wins. Kregath knows that combat started. Kregath knows Vorpal reached for his pouch.

Two rounds of combat in, Kregath is higher in initiative again. Kregath is gaging whether Vorpal (almost dead) is going to continue to fight or surrender, so Kregath thinks "If Vorpal starts his swing again, I will strike the killing blow first". Vorpal rears back to swing his hammer.
[Tiger's view] Kregath sees this like he did the first time, and strikes true, killing Vorpal mid swing.
[Godot's view] combat is already started, so he can't make the decision to attack in time, Vorpal gets his hit in..

The same situation, but your interpretation has a different outcome.
Why didn't Kregath's initial hesitation (before initiative) delay his ability to act?


You are 100% allowed to rule differently,
You can rule your way, too. your interpretation is not more correct than mine. both are within the rules.

[darknite]

What the OP is suggesting isn't 5e. There are game systems out there that have this level of detail, if that's what you're looking for.

[NaughtyTiger]

What the OP is suggesting isn't 5e. There are game systems out there that have this level of detail, if that's what you're looking for.

the OP asked a question, and listed a rationale for his question. he didn't make a suggestion.

moreover, speed factor initiative is an option in 5e.

[darknite]

the OP asked a question, and listed a rationale for his question. he didn't make a suggestion.

moreover, speed factor initiative is an option in 5e.

Then use that.

[Tiadoppler]

All of those specific reactions you mentioned say when and how they are used. Ready Action says it happens after. The way other reactions work is not permission to use Ready Action the same way.

Shield requires that the attack has already resolved "a reaction which you take when you are hit by an attack or targeted by the magic missile spell" and has further wording to allow the outcome of the step 2 modifiers to change "including against the triggering attack"

You are correct. I was basing my statement solely on the description of Readied Actions on page 193 of the PHB, but the clarification on page 252 of the DMG supports your argument. Shield and Cutting Words are special reactions, and most reactions do not behave like that.


The only timing we have as reference is "after the perceivable trigger has occurred" which, following the more rigid rules structure of combat, means that you can only perceive being attacked once the attack has been rolled and determined to be a hit or miss. Steps 1 and 2 are purely mechanical.

I cannot find any rules to support that statement. Do you have a page number for reference? The idea that during combat you can only perceive mechanical actions is an odd one. Can you perceive in-character speech? Hand signals?


There's nothing wrong with including your own rulings on determining whether someone glancing/aiming their weapon in your direction in combat is an acceptable trigger for "they are definitely starting to attack me and nothing else". In fact, I think it would be a good use of some passive skills. Passive skills tend not to get a lot of love and using a passive insight score as a threat detector is something I would like to test.


I agree. The RAW for Readied Actions has a major flaw in that it does not take the perception of the player character into account.

By RAW, you pick a perceivable circumstance to trigger your reaction, and an action to take.
When that trigger occurs, you can choose to take the reaction or not. The provided example, "If the cultist steps on the trapdoor, I'll pull the lever that opens it," (PHB 193) has a significant flaw. For example:

What if the cultist is (unknown to the player) an illusion created by the real cultist? The illusion of the cultist appears to step on the trapdoor. Does your Readied Action trigger? Are you able to pull the lever or not? By RAW, the triggering circumstance has not happened (Trigger: cultist steps on the trapdoor. Event: illusion appears to step on the trapdoor), but your character believes that the trigger has occurred.

Therefore, I think it's important for DMs to rule that the trigger for a Readied Action is mental and internal to the player character. If the player character believes that the trigger is occurring, they can take their Readied Action.

Additionally, it would be my ruling that if a player character decides on a triggering circumstance of "I am about to be attacked" or "I am targeted by an attack", they would be able to take their Readied Action when the character believes that circumstance is happening. They could well be wrong, but that doesn't affect their ability to take the reaction. I like the idea of using passive Wisdom(Insight) in that situation.


Edit:
On a separate note, how would you rule a readied attack when the trigger is "when I am hit by an attack"? The reaction would happen after the attack roll, but before the damage roll (there's a different trigger for "when I am damaged by an attack").

Step 1: Enemy's attack roll hits you. Your reaction triggers.
Step 2: You make your attack roll.
Step 3: You make your damage roll. The damage kills your enemy.
Step 4: (A: The dead enemy makes their damage roll) (B: The dead enemy makes their damage roll using updated ability score modifiers, e.g. a Strength of 0) (C: There is no damage roll)

[Man_Over_Game]

I cannot find any rules to support that statement. Do you have a page number for reference? The idea that during combat you can only perceive mechanical actions is an odd one. Can you perceive in-character speech? Hand signals?


I think the closest thing there is for evidence is this, from the DMG, page 252:


If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.

As well as the rules for the Ready Action:

Sometimes you want to get the jump on a foe or wait for a particular circumstance before you act. To do so, you can take the Ready action on your turn, which lets you act using your reaction before the start of your next turn.

First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it. Examples include "If the cultist steps on the trapdoor, I'll pull the lever that opens it," and "If the goblin steps next to me, I move away."

[Tiadoppler]

I think the closest thing there is for evidence is this, from the DMG, page 252:


If a reaction has no timing specified, or the timing is unclear, the reaction occurs after its trigger finishes, as in the Ready action.

As well as the rules for the Ready Action:

Sometimes you want to get the jump on a foe or wait for a particular circumstance before you act. To do so, you can take the Ready action on your turn, which lets you act using your reaction before the start of your next turn.

First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it. Examples include "If the cultist steps on the trapdoor, I'll pull the lever that opens it," and "If the goblin steps next to me, I move away."


I was referring to the statement that the only valid "perceivable circumstances" (for triggering readied actions) were specific parts of mechanical Actions. I think that it's valid to perceive somebody aiming a crossbow or raising their sword (choosing a target), and react to that circumstance. The assertion I was questioning was:


you can only perceive being attacked once the attack has been rolled and determined to be a hit or miss

I acknowledge that, in certain circumstances, it may not be clear precisely who is the target of the attack, but I would certainly allow players in my campaign to react to an enemy making an attack, and I was wondering if that is specifically contrary to the rules.

[Man_Over_Game]

I was referring to the statement that the only valid "perceivable circumstances" (for triggering readied actions) were specific parts of mechanical Actions. I think that it's valid to perceive somebody aiming a crossbow or raising their sword (choosing a target), and react to that circumstance. The assertion I was questioning was:



I acknowledge that, in certain circumstances, it may not be clear precisely who is the target of the attack, but I would certainly allow players in my campaign to react to an enemy making an attack, and I was wondering if that is specifically contrary to the rules.

On that note, there is one explicit example of recognizing an attack before an attack roll is made: Portent.

So...it's definitely possible to do so. Whether or not the Ready Action/Trigger can do so, or if this is just something specific to the Portent feature, is another question.

[Chronos]

But Portent explicitly works by seeing glimpses of the future.

To those who say that you can trigger on the enemy drawing their bow or raising their sword or whatever, well, you have to do those things too. If your enemy starts raising their sword before you start raising your sword, then they'll finish swinging their sword before you finish swinging yours, too.

[OverLordOcelot]

Not sure if you were rocking the sarcasm or not.

Foam maul doesn't have the weight of a real maul, or the damage of a real maul.
Real maul would have a much lower acceleration than a real dagger.

Not sarcastic at all. The old "daggers hit before polearms" thing from 1e is silly and unrealistic, even Gary Gygax who wrote the thing has said it was a mistake. Using leverage to move a weapon of war, even one with the unrealistic 10 pound weight from the weapon chart is much, much faster than moving your entire body from "maul length away" to "dagger length away". The idea that a maul has a significant "acceleration time" is silly, as is the corresponding idea that a 10 pound maul is harder to move quickly that a 150+ pound human. You can wave a dagger around easily, but moving in close to someone and stabbing hard enough to penetrate armor takes more time and strength than using leverage to hit dagger guy with a maul.

[Man_Over_Game]

But Portent explicitly works by seeing glimpses of the future.

To those who say that you can trigger on the enemy drawing their bow or raising their sword or whatever, well, you have to do those things too. If your enemy starts raising their sword before you start raising your sword, then they'll finish swinging their sword before you finish swinging yours, too.

On the aspect of Portent...not necessarily so.

With Portent, you aren't given a 100% guaranteed result if the roll in question has Dis/Advantage. Portent states that it replaces a die, and the rules on dice rerolls and replacements states that you can only ever reroll or replace a single die.

Additionally, you must choose to use Portent before the roll is made. To the player, there is a time period that exists that an attack is confirmed, yet the roll is not made. Portent might have the ability to change fate in that split second, but that split second still exists (at least, as a mechanical concept). What a DM rules beyond that doesn't have much information towards either side.

As a DM, saying that someone with a slower initiative acts sooner than someone who has a higher initiative who is preparing for the slower thug's attack just seems...wrong. Not only does it devalue initiative (which is difficult to improve), but it also devalues tactics and risk.

I would much rather have someone make risky tactics than someone who just prefers to spam the Attack button on their turn. And that also means I have to support that playstyle, too.

[NaughtyTiger]

Not sarcastic at all. The old "daggers hit before polearms" thing from 1e is silly and unrealistic, even Gary Gygax who wrote the thing has said it was a mistake. Using leverage to move a weapon of war, even one with the unrealistic 10 pound weight from the weapon chart is much, much faster than moving your entire body from "maul length away" to "dagger length away". The idea that a maul has a significant "acceleration time" is silly, as is the corresponding idea that a 10 pound maul is harder to move quickly that a 150+ pound human. You can wave a dagger around easily, but moving in close to someone and stabbing hard enough to penetrate armor takes more time and strength than using leverage to hit dagger guy with a maul.

Not buying it.
having swung a 10lb sledgehammer for a summer, i can attest it is much easier/faster to step forward 3ft vs swing the hammer 9ft (3ft back, then 6ft forward) fast enough to drive a stake.

moreover, daggers don't penetrate armor. they find holes in armor, so you don't have to poke hard that hard.

however, we are getting into reality-based physics, which has no place in a magical world, so unless you "swing" some articles my way, i am done.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You are blurring the perception of the player and the character.
So if Kevin (player at your table) says "I will attack if we are attacked", who said that Kevin, or his character, Kronk?
Since Kronk doesn't know about attack rolls or other rules, clearly Kronk will consider that Vorpal the Destroyer launching a fireball at the party is an attack.
If Kevin said it, did he mean "any act of aggression" or did he mean "if Vorpal makes an attack roll"? If a DM requires that a player and a character to use strict language rather than intent, then you are playing against an adversarial DM.
I don't think I am. I'm arguing that the player knowing they are the target of an attack before an attack roll is made is not a justification for their character to act faster. Every perceivable instance to the character has already cemented that they must react to the attack and not preempt it.


The event must be perceivable to whom though. As I stated, the character can perceive the sword start swinging, the bow being drawn....
The player can perceive the individual steps for selecting of a target, the roll. we know this because there are specific abilities that affect the individual steps.
Yes, those are perceivable to the character. Remember that initiative is structured as turns but the narrative is not. The actions of all participants take place in a game time of 6 seconds. Your assumption that you can simply wait for the enemy to act, and respond to their beginning to act so that you can act before them breaks the idea that all actions are happening simultaneously in that 6 second interval.

In fact I find a lot of the assumptions you've made rely on the character somehow living their lives in a turn based structure just because we play the game in that way.


2 parties are facing off (no surprise) but combat hasn't started yet. goblin yells Breyarch, targets the barbarian, and makes an attack roll.
this is an example where the fast elf can act after the goblin started her attack but before she finishes it.
There is no reason why initiative wouldn't be rolled at the declaration of attack. This example is a poor one. In this instance it isn't the ready action that is making this elf faster than the Goblin, it's rolling initiative. The intent to attack would trigger initiative and the goblin wouldn't roll their attack roll until its turn in initiative.

Separate initiative from the ready action in your mind. Your initiative does not affect your ability to use the ready action. They aren't related at all. If you have a 32 initiative and you choose to wait for a specific trigger on your turn, that initiative doesn't somehow speed up your reaction. You waited, you lost the initiative.


Now this one is interesting.

So Kregath and Vorpal are facing off, waiting for the other to start something. Vorpal rears back to swing his hammer. Roll initiative. Kregath wins. Kregath knows that combat started. Kregath knows Vorpal reached for his pouch.

Two rounds of combat in, Kregath is higher in initiative again. Kregath is gaging whether Vorpal (almost dead) is going to continue to fight or surrender, so Kregath thinks "If Vorpal starts his swing again, I will strike the killing blow first". Vorpal rears back to swing his hammer.
[Tiger's view] Kregath sees this like he did the first time, and strikes true, killing Vorpal mid swing.
[Godot's view] combat is already started, so he can't make the decision to attack in time, Vorpal gets his hit in..

The same situation, but your interpretation has a different outcome.
Why didn't Kregath's initial hesitation (before initiative) delay his ability to act?
It delays his ability to act because he chose to wait rather than attack immediately. There was no mechanical benefit to him waiting for a potential surrender. Kregath could have used non lethal damage to knock Vorpal unconscious, allowing him to definitely act first and definitely prevent Vorpal's death, or at least postpone it.

You can create as many scenarios as you like, but they don't change the fact that generally a ready action will occur after the trigger. If you trigger is "when they attack me" they will attack you first. There is no such rule written that allows your character to perceive a weapon attack at its start without a chance that they were not attacking you.


You can rule your way, too. your interpretation is not more correct than mine. both are within the rules.
I would argue that the RAW interpretation using the least amount of inferences (things not explicitly written down) is the most correct, but like I said, RAW is meaningless if it doesn't fit your tables needs.

To clarify, you could set your trigger to the perceivable instance "if they begin to attack me" but don't be surprised if you end up mistaking that trigger. They could be doing any number of things that appear to be attacking you and you wouldn't know for certain unless they have already made an attack roll and were going to land a strike on your first. This careful wording nonsense to break the flow of the Ready Action for basically no benefit is nonsensical to me. It just reads like you're trying to game the system instead of using your action to do what you want to react with instead.

And I can see this response coming from a mile away "why is the DM playing gotcha with the player like that" and my response is "why is the player playing gotcha with the DM like that". If you're planning on being lawyer like in your wording of a trigger don't be surprised if a DM eventually gets fed up with that and responds in kind.



I cannot find any rules to support that statement. Do you have a page number for reference? The idea that during combat you can only perceive mechanical actions is an odd one. Can you perceive in-character speech? Hand signals?
I didn't say the perceivable event had to be mechanical, what I've been saying is that there is no certainty that "when he raises his weapon" means the same thing as "when he begins attacking me"

"When he raises his weapon" is a perfectly acceptable trigger. It does not mean you have interrupted his attack, it doesn't mean he was attacking you at all. You run the risk of attacking someone who had no intention of harming you. You have no way of knowing that this simply action was hostile towards you specifically. You're not acting before his attack, you're acting before he's even done anything other than raise his weapon.

"When he begins attacking me" is technically an acceptable trigger, but since Making an Attack is more structured your character can only respond to this perceivable instance after the attack roll is made. an "attack" is only made when an "attack roll" is made.


Edit:
On a separate note, how would you rule a readied attack when the trigger is "when I am hit by an attack"? The reaction would happen after the attack roll, but before the damage roll (there's a different trigger for "when I am damaged by an attack").

Step 1: Enemy's attack roll hits you. Your reaction triggers.
Step 2: You make your attack roll.
Step 3: You make your damage roll. The damage kills your enemy.
Step 4: (A: The dead enemy makes their damage roll) (B: The dead enemy makes their damage roll using updated ability score modifiers, e.g. a Strength of 0) (C: There is no damage roll)
They could word their trigger like that, sure, but they're going to be damaged at the same time as they are hit. I'd find it difficult to argue that your character could perceive being hit by an attack and being damaged by that same attack differently.

Step 3: You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise.
Again, Cutting Words allows you to affect both attack and damage rolls through its own rules. As far as the general rule is concerned an attack and damage roll happen at the same time, step 3 of Making an Attack.

[NaughtyTiger]

snip

We agree, Winning initiative is what determines who attacks faster.
We agree, that all the actions at the same time.

We agree, the goblin raises his sword to attack and the barbarian with higher initiative the barbarian can attack first., if combat hasn't started

We disagree, the goblin raises his sword to attack and the barbarian with higher initiative the barbarian can attack first. , if combat has started.

to me there is no difference in the narrative of the 2 cases.

in both bases, the barbarian waited until the goblin started the attack.
in both cases, the barbarian has higher initiative.
in one case, the barbarian knows that the goblin is attacking the party and still act first
in other case, the barbarian cannot know that the goblin is attacking the party and still act first

i don't understand why the barbarian can react faster than the goblin at the start of combat, but not in the midst of it.

[Contrast]

We agree, Winning initiative is what determines who attacks faster.
We agree, that all the actions at the same time.

We agree, the goblin raises his sword to attack and the barbarian with higher initiative the barbarian can attack first., if combat hasn't started

We disagree, the goblin raises his sword to attack and the barbarian with higher initiative the barbarian can attack first. , if combat has started.

to me there is no difference in the narrative of the 2 cases.

in both bases, the barbarian waited until the goblin started the attack.
in both cases, the barbarian has higher initiative.
in one case, the barbarian knows that the goblin is attacking the party and still act first
in other case, the barbarian cannot know that the goblin is attacking the party and still act first

i don't understand why the barbarian can react faster than the goblin at the start of combat, but not in the midst of it.

The ready action is (literally in this case) giving up the initiative would be the counter argument there. You have the opportunity to react first but choose to pause rather than act to allow you to respond to someone elses actions.

Consider if you and I were playing the card game snap. You have faster reactions so you're generally winning. But then you decide instead of just reacting when you see a snap, instead you're going to hesitate and wait to see if I also go for the snap and only go for it if I do. Suddenly you will start losing.

Personally I would probably run it on a case by case basis - rigid adherence to either side has implications I find unpalatable, hence why my advice on the matter is 'ask your DM how they intend to run it'.

[NaughtyTiger]

snip

rather than answer my question, you propose a question about a different game entirely.

i will ask it again.
i contend that the narrative text the goblin raises his sword to attack and the barbarian with higher initiative the barbarian can attack first is valid for the first round of combat and the second round of combat.

you disagree. so explain to me why
in the first round of combat, the goblin starts his attack first but the faster barbarian can attack before the goblin finishes its attack.
in the second round of combat, the goblin starts his attack first but the faster barbarian can't attack before the goblin finishes its attack.

[ProsecutorGodot]

rather than answer my question, you propose a question about a different game entirely.

i will ask it again.
i contend that the narrative text the goblin raises his sword to attack and the barbarian with higher initiative the barbarian can attack first is valid for the first round of combat and the second round of combat.

you disagree. so explain to me why
in the first round of combat, the goblin starts his attack first but the faster barbarian can attack before the goblin finishes its attack.
in the second round of combat, the goblin starts his attack first but the faster barbarian can't attack before the goblin finishes its attack.

If the Barbarian chooses to use ready action, then yes he attacks after.

Separate Initiative and Ready Action. They do not correlate, your insistence that they do is the issue. Your initiative has no impact on your ability to use Ready Action.

[NaughtyTiger]

Up front, let me check something.
your interpretation is perfectly valid. nothing in the RAW text contradicts that.
i commented on your interpretation initially to suggest that yours is not the only valid interpretation, and offer an alternate valid interpretation. i did not explicitly state that i felt yours was valid, I should have.
i am not trying to say you are wrong. i am merely arguing that I am not wrong either. so if you have no issue with my interpretation then i will happily stand down and apologize for escalating this.


if you do think i am incorrect, then explain to me why in the first round of combat, the goblin starts his attack first but the faster barbarian can attack before the goblin finishes its attack? (you choose narrative or mechanics)

the barbarian literally goes AFTER the goblin started the attack.

[jh12]

in the first round of combat, the goblin starts his attack first but the faster barbarian can attack before the goblin finishes its attack.
in the second round of combat, the goblin starts his attack first but the faster barbarian can't attack before the goblin finishes its attack.

This would also allow the slower goblin to start his attack after the faster barbarian but finish it first in the third round if the goblin readied his action in the second round (which mechanically isn't any different than the faster barbarian doing it all in one round).

There's no easy way square the narrative of everything happening in 6 seconds intervals with a turn-based system. If the faster barbarian has to move to attack the slower goblin, the slower goblin can attack the barbarian at the start of the goblin's turn even though the barbarian hasn't arrived yet because the narrative clock has reset to when the barbarian was just starting to move. The entire combat system is chock full of temporal anomalies and violations of causality.

[NaughtyTiger]

This would also allow the slower goblin to start his attack after the faster barbarian but finish it first in the third round if the goblin readied his action in the second round (which mechanically isn't any different than the faster barbarian doing it all in one round).

There's no easy way square the narrative of everything happening in 6 seconds intervals with a turn-based system. If the faster barbarian has to move to attack the slower goblin, the slower goblin can attack the barbarian at the start of the goblin's turn even though the barbarian hasn't arrived yet because the narrative clock has reset to when the barbarian was just starting to move. The entire combat system is chock full of temporal anomalies and violations of causality.

i don't think it is that complicated

barb's turn: barb readies his action to attack if goblin [starts to] attacks.
goblins turn: goblin notes that the barb didn't attack, so she readies her action to attack if barb [starts to] attacks.
barb's turn: the readied action expired. the barb chooses a new action, attack the orc.
---the goblin's readied action kicks in, she attacks the barb----
---barb continues attack on orc, orc is dead.
goblins turn: the goblin chooses her action, ...

my players say, "i will ready my action to attack if it looks like she is gonna attack"
as soon as i say, the goblin raises her scimitar to Kronk, my player jumps in to say, "wait, she attacked, i get my readied action"

[warty goblin]

Not buying it.
having swung a 10lb sledgehammer for a summer, i can attest it is much easier/faster to step forward 3ft vs swing the hammer 9ft (3ft back, then 6ft forward) fast enough to drive a stake.

moreover, daggers don't penetrate armor. they find holes in armor, so you don't have to poke hard that hard.

however, we are getting into reality-based physics, which has no place in a magical world, so unless you "swing" some articles my way, i am done.

Generally speaking, when fighting with a weapon one swings, your default stances place the weapon in a position from where you can immediately swing it, and then swing it through an arc that places it in position to swing again. The same is of with a weapon with which you intend to thrust, you start with it in position to thrust. Only difference is that you can power a thrust almost entirely with leg and torso movement, and so may hold the weapon with an extended arm and still threaten a strike.

[jh12]

i don't think it is that complicated

It's not that it's complicated, it's that narrative justifications don't really work for either side. If we continue your examples, we get this narrative conundrum:


in the first round of combat, the goblin starts his attack first but the faster barbarian can attack before the goblin finishes its attack.
in the second round of combat, the goblin starts his attack first but the faster barbarian can't attack before the goblin finishes its attack.
In the third round of combat, the faster barbarian starts his attack first but the slower goblin is still able to attack before the barbarian finishes its attack.

[NaughtyTiger]

In the third round of combat, the faster barbarian starts his attack first but the slower goblin is still able to attack before the barbarian finishes its attack.

not following how you got there.
i think you are changing the mechanics without stating them.

at any rate, i am bored of this

[jh12]

I'm not. It's a description of the example you used.


barb's turn: barb readies his action to attack if goblin [starts to] attacks.
goblins turn: goblin notes that the barb didn't attack, so she readies her action to attack if barb [starts to] attacks.
barb's turn: the readied action expired. the barb chooses a new action, attack the orc.
---the goblin's readied action kicks in, she attacks the barb----
---barb continues attack on orc, orc is dead.
goblins turn: the goblin chooses her action, ...

[Bloodcloud]

I mean, a counter attack, by definition, means the other guy is already attacking. Any somewhat trained opponent knows to minimize the length of time between guarding and opening up to attack.

A dex based attack is likely to come before the heavy str based attack already because of initiative.

[OverLordOcelot]

Not buying it.
having swung a 10lb sledgehammer for a summer, i can attest it is much easier/faster to step forward 3ft vs swing the hammer 9ft (3ft back, then 6ft forward) fast enough to drive a stake.

When you're fighting with a two handed weapon, you don't swing it 9 feet. That's not how two handed weapons are used, they are generally right in front of the body and take advantage of leverage. And if your goal is to drive a spike, good luck driving one anywhere near as far with one quick blow from a dagger.

[Quote]moreover, daggers don't penetrate armor. they find holes in armor, so you don't have to poke hard that hard.

Daggers are inanimate, they don't find anything. The fact that daggers are awful at penetrating armor means it's significantly harder to land a solid hit with one than with a weapon that is effective against armor. Yes, if you require the maul user to hit with enough force to drive a spike and assume the dagger user just needs to lightly tap, the dagger user will hit first, but you're hilariously divorced from anything realistic.

[ThePolarBear]

in both bases, the barbarian waited until the goblin started the attack.

Letting aside that i think there are problems with other parts in my opinion, the biggest issue is here.
What does "started the attack" mean? What did the goblin ACTUALLY DO?

Once you clear out this and apply the exact same description as a trigger for a Ready Action you'll see that you can react before a mechanical attack is made. However said reaction, exactly as it happens at the start of combat, will necessarily happen BEFORE there's certainty on intention by the goblin.
That is when what you think the goblin is going to do and are trying to prevent actually happens, confirming your suspicions.