Readied action question

[MThurston]

My Hexblade can not attack twice with his weapon because that attack is worded on my turn.

What about EB? I should be able to have two blasts at level 5?

[strangebloke]

Yup, works as you'd expect.

[JackPhoenix]

Note that readying your spell requires your concentration, so you can't use Hex or other concentration spells at the same time, and it can be disrupted by taking damage between the casting and the release. And if it uses a spell slot (not a problem with cantrips), the spell slot is lost even if the trigger never happens.

[Man_Over_Game]

My Hexblade can not attack twice with gis weapon because that attack is worded on my turn.

What about EB? I should be able to have two blasts at level 5?

Bit of a minor correction on this:

The Ready Action allows you to hold a spell or ready an attack. Note the lack of plural. You do not Ready the "Attack Action". You Ready an attack.

Even a level 20 Fighter, with x4 attacks, would only be able to attack once out of turn if they used the Ready Action.

[MThurston]

Bit of a minor correction on this:

The Ready Action allows you to hold a spell or ready an attack. Note the lack of plural. You do not Ready the "Attack Action". You Ready an attack.

Even a level 20 Fighter, with x4 attacks, would only be able to attack once out of turn if they used the Ready Action.

Why would I lose concentration spells on a readied attack?

[tieren]

Why would I lose concentration spells on a readied attack?

You lose concentration on any spell you had been concentrating one when you cast the new one and use your ready action to hold its release until the trigger. You must concentrate on the spell while it is in the "readied" state, you only release it after the trigger you don't cast it then.

[Man_Over_Game]

Why would I lose concentration spells on a readied attack?

I didn't say you did?

My post wasn't on the topic of spells, it was basically regarding that there's nothing special with the Warlock Invocation that prevents you from doing so, it's an inherent limitation of the Ready Action. Even if the invocation was written differently, you wouldn't be able to attack more than once with a weapon with the Ready Action.

Eldritch Blast still works fine, though. Just keep in mind that Holding a Spell does require Concentration, so if you were already Concentrating on a spell when you Hold a Spell, you have to choose to drop one of the two.

Holding a spell: Requires Concentration.
Holding an attack: Does Not Require Concentration.

[MThurston]

I didn't say you did?

My post wasn't on the topic of spells, it was basically regarding that there's nothing special with the Warlock Invocation that prevents you from doing so, it's an inherent limitation of the Ready Action. Even if the invocation was written differently, you wouldn't be able to attack more than once with a weapon with the Ready Action.

Eldritch Blast still works fine, though. Just keep in mind that Holding a Spell does require Concentration, so if you were already Concentrating on a spell when you Hold a Spell, you have to choose to drop one of the two.

Holding a spell: Requires Concentration.
Holding an attack: Does Not Require Concentration.
So I can play chess, have sex and drink water without breaking concentration but if I ready a spell, then I do.

These rules are stupid.

[Man_Over_Game]

So I can play chess, have sex and drink water without breaking concentration but if I ready a spell, then I do.

These rules are stupid.

I mean, if you find something better, make sure to come back and let us know.



A DM might rule that certain things might break Concentration (some spells do, like Sleet Storm).

Concentration, as a whole, is a magic term, though. There aren't any instances that I'm aware of where something takes Concentration but isn't Magic. Kinda like Spell Slots in a way. You could say Concentration is as magical as Spell Slots, and you don't use Spell Slots to play chess.

Of course, any damage or ample amount of distraction has a chance of breaking Concentration. You might say that a roller coaster might not take Concentration, but it has a chance of breaking it.

[Coffee_Dragon]

You do not Ready the "Attack Action". You Ready an attack.

I don't think this is technically correct.

[Man_Over_Game]

I don't think this is technically correct.

I double checked. You're right. I'm wrong.

Ready has you choose the action. Extra Attack adds additional attacks, but only during your turn.

So you're still making the Attack Action with your Reaction, but Extra Attack isn't applied (unless you're spending your Reaction for the Attack Action during your turn).

[Quietus]

Concentration, as a whole, is a magic term, though. There aren't any instances that I'm aware of where something takes Concentration but isn't Magic. Kinda like Spell Slots in a way. You could say Concentration is as magical as Spell Slots, and you don't use Spell Slots to play chess.

Of course, any damage or ample amount of distraction has a chance of breaking Concentration. You might say that a roller coaster might not take Concentration, but it has a chance of breaking it.

I could have sworn that things like picking a lock also required concentration, but I'm at work and can't check my books right now. Will report back if no one can check this for me in the next few hours.

[Hail Tempus]

So I can play chess, have sex and drink water without breaking concentration but if I ready a spell, then I do.

These rules are stupid. You're casting another spell and maintaining concentration on it. RAW, if you're already concentrating on a spell, that existing concentration is broken. I don't see what the issue is.

And as a DM, I would probably make you roll a concentration check if you started a game of chess and had a spell going. I would certainly do so if you started having sex.

[Quietus]

I could have sworn that things like picking a lock also required concentration, but I'm at work and can't check my books right now. Will report back if no one can check this for me in the next few hours.

Just took a look, couldn't find any reference to this. I must have been carrying something over from 3.5, my mistake.

[Tanarii]

I double checked. You're right. I'm wrong.

Ready has you choose the action. Extra Attack adds additional attacks, but only during your turn.

So you're still making the Attack Action with your Reaction, but Extra Attack isn't applied (unless you're spending your Reaction for the Attack Action during your turn).
Since we're talking about a Hexblade, I assume it's Thirsting Blade not Extra Attack. Which also says on your turn. I checked just now. (Just sharing for completeness. :smallsmile: )

[MThurston]

I mean, if you find something better, make sure to come back and let us know.



A DM might rule that certain things might break Concentration (some spells do, like Sleet Storm).

Concentration, as a whole, is a magic term, though. There aren't any instances that I'm aware of where something takes Concentration but isn't Magic. Kinda like Spell Slots in a way. You could say Concentration is as magical as Spell Slots, and you don't use Spell Slots to play chess.

Of course, any damage or ample amount of distraction has a chance of breaking Concentration. You might say that a roller coaster might not take Concentration, but it has a chance of breaking it.

But a can have hex up and cast EB. But if I use a reaction to cast EB then I lose hex.

That doesn't work in my eyes. Also if I use a reaction to just attack, then I should also lose hex.

Double standard and silly ruling.

So I cast invisibility and I set a reaction up that if someone walks around the corner I cast guide on myself to sneak around the other corner. My invisibility drops because I have set a reaction up? Silly

[ProsecutorGodot]

But a can have hex up and cast EB. But if I use a reaction to cast EB then I lose hex.

That doesn't work in my eyes. Also if I use a reaction to just attack, then I should also lose hex.

Double standard and silly ruling.

So I cast invisibility and I set a reaction up that if someone walks around the corner I cast guide on myself to sneak around the other corner. My invisibility drops because I have set a reaction up? Silly

It's not silly.

First example - That's just how the Ready Action works. To maintain the magic without immediately firing it off requires your concentration to hold it. Firing off an Eldritch Blast is effortless, holding an Eldritch Blast to fire as a result of a trigger is difficult enough to require your full magical attention. Casting a spell has unique rules in all aspects of the game, there's even an entire chapter in the PHB dedicated to it. It also happens to have a unique rule associated as part of the Ready Action.

When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs. To be readied, a spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and holding onto the spell's magic requires concentration (explained in chapter 10). If your concentration is broken, the spell dissipates without taking effect. For example, if you are concentrating on the web spell and ready magic missile, your web spell ends, and if you take damage before you release magic missile with your reaction, your concentration might be broken.
Pretty self explanatory.

Also just to be clear, it's not that casting a spell as a reaction takes your concentration, it's using the Ready Action to fire a spell later that does. Things like War Caster, which allow you to cast a spell as a reaction or spells like Shield will not interrupt your concentration. I assume you meant it in this way, just sharing to avoid any confusion.

Second example - irrelevant, casting Guidance would break your invisibility anyway. First because you cast a spell, second because you're holding the spell and third because Guidance is a concentration spell even when cast normally.

[Hail Tempus]

So I cast invisibility and I set a reaction up that if someone walks around the corner I cast guide on myself to sneak around the other corner. My invisibility drops because I have set a reaction up? Silly You can't ready an action that involves both moving and casting a spell/making an attack.

For example, your ready action can be "if the goblin enters the room, I'll move out of it using the other door", or "if the goblin moves next to me, I'll attack him."

Your readied action can't be something like "if the goblin moves next to me, I'll attack him, then move out of the room." If you could do so, you'd be essentially getting two actions (attack action and move action) for the cost of one.

[JackPhoenix]

So I cast invisibility and I set a reaction up that if someone walks around the corner I cast guide on myself to sneak around the other corner. My invisibility drops because I have set a reaction up? Silly

No, your Invisibility drops because you've cast a spell. Concentration spell to boot, in case you've tried Greater Invisibility.


You can't ready an action that involves both moving and casting a spell/making an attack.

For example, your ready action can be "if the goblin enters the room, I'll move out of it using the other door", or "if the goblin moves next to me, I'll attack him."

Your readied action can't be something like "if the goblin moves next to me, I'll attack him, then move out of the room." If you could do so, you'd be essentially getting two actions (attack action and move action) for the cost of one.

There's no move action in 5e. You still can't ready both movement and action, though.

[Hail Tempus]

There's no move action in 5e. You still can't ready both movement and action, though. Yeah, you're right. What I should have said is that by readying an Action, you "trade" the Action on your turn into one of a limited number of Actions outside of your turn, such as an Attack, Dash or spellcasting Action.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Yeah, you're right. What I should have said is that by readying an Action, you "trade" the Action on your turn into one of a limited number of Actions outside of your turn, such as an Attack, Dash or spellcasting Action.

Dashing off-turn has no effect. :smalltongue:

[MThurston]

You can't ready an action that involves both moving and casting a spell/making an attack.

For example, your ready action can be "if the goblin enters the room, I'll move out of it using the other door", or "if the goblin moves next to me, I'll attack him."

Your readied action can't be something like "if the goblin moves next to me, I'll attack him, then move out of the room." If you could do so, you'd be essentially getting two actions (attack action and move action) for the cost of one.

Not if I didn't move on my turn.

It's a silly rule but the rules 5e worshippers will not see how silly it is.

[MThurston]

No, your Invisibility drops because you've cast a spell. Concentration spell to boot, in case you've tried Greater Invisibility.



There's no move action in 5e. You still can't ready both movement and action, though.

So if I am 15 feet from a door and have not moved, I can ready an action to charge the first thing through the door?

[Man_Over_Game]

So if I am 15 feet from a door and have not moved, I can ready an action to charge the first thing through the door?

A DM might say you could, because of how specific the movement and the action are (you're not choosing to move to a vantage point and choose what enemy to shoot). RAW, you would not be able to move and attack with the same Ready/Reaction.

They probably added the restriction so that:

Turn orders are static (which keeps things chaotic and less controlled).
Things stay simple.
Combos are less consistent.



Otherwise, you'd have every Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin being out of range and saying "When they move within 30 feet, I wait until the following turn to run up and attack them".

[Hail Tempus]

Not if I didn't move on my turn.

It's a silly rule but the rules 5e worshippers will not see how silly it is. Barring a specific exception, your ability to do certain things during your turn doesn't allow you to do those things outside of your turn. Your move allotment effectively expires at the end of your turn. I don't see why you'd expect to be able to freely split up your turn into several "chunks" during a round, other than in accordance with specific rules.

[MThurston]

Barring a specific exception, your ability to do certain things during your turn doesn't allow you to do those things outside of your turn. Your move allotment effectively expires at the end of your turn. I don't see why you'd expect to be able to freely split up your turn into several "chunks" during a round, other than in accordance with specific rules.

And this is why holding your action should never have been removed from the rules.

[Chronos]

I think that MThurston fully acknowledges what the rules are; he just doesn't like them.

And I agree. My archer can ready an action to shoot someone, and if the trigger doesn't occur, he doesn't waste an arrow. Why should a spellcaster waste a spell slot in the same situation?

Nor do I see why they removed delaying action from the rules. It can't be because it's too complicated, because readied actions are more complicated than delayed action (especially since they made readied actions more complicated than they used to be). It can't be because it doesn't make sense, because why wouldn't it? And there are some cases where you actually want to lose the initiative roll, and ironically, some of those cases overlap with the characters most likely to win it (example: A non-assassin rogue would prefer to take his turn after the melee folks have gotten into position, but his high Dex makes that less likely to happen).

[CorporateSlave]

I think that MThurston fully acknowledges what the rules are; he just doesn't like them.

And I agree. My archer can ready an action to shoot someone, and if the trigger doesn't occur, he doesn't waste an arrow. Why should a spellcaster waste a spell slot in the same situation?

...because it's not the "same situation?" It is the nature of the Ready action that you risk wasting something in exchange for choosing the timing more precisely. You're looking at comparing an arrow to a spell slot because you feel it illustrates your point as they are both "consumables," but for an archer the arrow is not what they are risking to waste.

If they're a fighter, they have already "wasted" any extra attacks, and they risk wasting the one remaining attack their Ready action would have granted them. If they're a Rogue, they are risking wasting their Sneak Attack, and so on. Attacks may not be consumable resources like a spell slot, but they aren't nothing either. And you could easily argue that the end reward is potentially far greater with a carefully timed spell than a carefully timed single attack (hence the additional risk of Concentration possibly being broken as well). More potential reward = more potential risk.*

I get that you don't like it, but you asked why (granted, in rhetorical fashion), and I think that would be the "why." Of course you, and anyone else, is still 100% free to not like it, and scrap it/homebrew an alternative at your table if that's more fun for you. However, to me it makes sense both mechanically (from a game balance sense) and thematically ("real world" logic). It stings a little from a power-gaming perspective, I concur.

*If anyone seriously wants to argue that an attack might be better than a spell, I would request they first answer why, if that is the case, are spell slots a limited resource and attacks are free to make every Turn in the first place? I'm sure everybody already understands that a 1st level spell probably isn't going to be as good as a 20th level Sneak Attack.

[mephnick]

What's with Warlock players and whining the system doesn't bend to their will every time they ask?

[Guy Lombard-O]

I think that MThurston fully acknowledges what the rules are; he just doesn't like them.

And I agree. My archer can ready an action to shoot someone, and if the trigger doesn't occur, he doesn't waste an arrow. Why should a spellcaster waste a spell slot in the same situation?

Logically in thinking about how the character would experience it, I agree as well. The archer waits for the goblin to walk around the corner, then fires his arrow. He doesn't "fire" the arrow and hold it in mid-air until the goblin walks around the corner. Likewise, the caster waits for the goblin to walk around the corner and then casts his EB at him. Why should he "cast" it and then wait/concentrate upon it until the goblin walks around the corner? I don't see how that really makes any more objective sense.

However, we are talking about a game, here. The rule makes sense from a balance perspective in an initiative-turn-based game system. As others have pointed out, martials give up extra attacks to accomplish a held reaction attack as well. And it's not like casters are underpowered despite the drawback.

I don't particularly like the rule, either. But it's a game, and the rule makes sense in that it's understandable and playable. I can live with it.

[jh12]

Logically in thinking about how the character would experience it, I agree as well. The archer waits for the goblin to walk around the corner, then fires his arrow. He doesn't "fire" the arrow and hold it in mid-air until the goblin walks around the corner. Likewise, the caster waits for the goblin to walk around the corner and then casts his EB at him. Why should he "cast" it and then wait/concentrate upon it until the goblin walks around the corner? I don't see how that really makes any more objective sense.

The archer doesn't just wait for the goblin to round the corner before shooting, he nocks an arrow, draws the bow, and aims at where he expects the goblin to appear. All of those steps are easily reversible if the goblin doesn't appear and he doesn't loose the arrow. According to the rules, however, the analogous steps for preparing to cast a spell aren't reversible, so it's use it or lose it. The rules didn't have to written that way, but there's certainly nothing illogical about treating firing an arrow and casting a spell differently.

[CorporateSlave]

The archer doesn't just wait for the goblin to round the corner before shooting, he nocks an arrow, draws the bow, and aims at where he expects the goblin to appear.

According to the rules, however, the analogous steps for preparing to cast a spell aren't reversible, so it's use it or lose it.

Exactly. Using the Ready action is like saying "I want to take some activity that normally takes an Action and do 95% of it beforehand to I can release it at juuuuust the right moment." You're not "holding an Action," you're performing most of an Action, then holding the last little bit.

In the case of spells, this means you are "pre-casting" it, but holding it just short of its effect which you release at juuuuust right moment. You are absolutely not just "waiting to cast it*" any more than the archer is waiting to pull an arrow from his quiver, knock and draw the bow, then aim...the archer has done all that already as part of their Ready. They are just waiting to loose. True, they get to keep the arrow if the trigger fails to happen. But as you agreed, they still lost their extra attacks along with their Ready attack in that case. Objectively, that's where the loss of the spell slot and the loss of additional attacks comes from - the "prep and hold" nature of Ready.

You're distilling an Action down to a Reaction, and in doing so lose/risk something of that Action in exchange for improved or more opportune timing.

*now that I think of it, this brings up an interesting point that may or may not have been debated...the Ready Action rules specifically say "you cast the spell as normal" (on your Turn) but release it when the trigger occurs. Would this effectively get around Counterspell in a similar fashion as Subtle spell does? If you cast a spell while the Counterspelling enemy does not see or otherwise does not Counterspell - i.e. maybe has already used their Reaction this Turn, or is just out of range - can they then cast Counterspell when you use your Reaction to release the spell? They would not be observing you casting it...in fact Counterspell says you must use the Reaction when a creature within 60' of you is casting a spell...but if it already has been cast (as per the wording of Ready Action) you've missed the boat and its too late, right?

[Quietus]

Exactly. Using the Ready action is like saying "I want to take some activity that normally takes an Action and do 95% of it beforehand to I can release it at juuuuust the right moment." You're not "holding an Action," you're performing most of an Action, then holding the last little bit.

In the case of spells, this means you are "pre-casting" it, but holding it just short of its effect which you release at juuuuust right moment. You are absolutely not just "waiting to cast it*" any more than the archer is waiting to pull an arrow from his quiver, knock and draw the bow, then aim...the archer has done all that already as part of their Ready. They are just waiting to loose. True, they get to keep the arrow if the trigger fails to happen. But as you agreed, they still lost their extra attacks along with their Ready attack in that case. Objectively, that's where the loss of the spell slot and the loss of additional attacks comes from - the "prep and hold" nature of Ready.

You're distilling an Action down to a Reaction, and in doing so lose/risk something of that Action in exchange for improved or more opportune timing.

*now that I think of it, this brings up an interesting point that may or may not have been debated...the Ready Action rules specifically say "you cast the spell as normal" (on your Turn) but release it when the trigger occurs. Would this effectively get around Counterspell in a similar fashion as Subtle spell does? If you cast a spell while the Counterspelling enemy does not see or otherwise does not Counterspell - i.e. maybe has already used their Reaction this Turn, or is just out of range - can they then cast Counterspell when you use your Reaction to release the spell? They would not be observing you casting it...in fact Counterspell says you must use the Reaction when a creature within 60' of you is casting a spell...but if it already has been cast (as per the wording of Ready Action) you've missed the boat and its too late, right?

I think you might have the right of it - if there is cover available, and you aren't already using your concentration, you could duck behind the cover, ready an action to "cast fireball when I see that group of enemies", then move back out of cover, triggering your readied spell. It costs you your reaction to do it, but the wording does make it so you're casting the spell while line of sight is broken, so they can't counter it.

The fact that this precludes concentration spells and burns your reaction, I think, makes this not cheesy at all.

[JackPhoenix]

*now that I think of it, this brings up an interesting point that may or may not have been debated...the Ready Action rules specifically say "you cast the spell as normal" (on your Turn) but release it when the trigger occurs. Would this effectively get around Counterspell in a similar fashion as Subtle spell does? If you cast a spell while the Counterspelling enemy does not see or otherwise does not Counterspell - i.e. maybe has already used their Reaction this Turn, or is just out of range - can they then cast Counterspell when you use your Reaction to release the spell? They would not be observing you casting it...in fact Counterspell says you must use the Reaction when a creature within 60' of you is casting a spell...but if it already has been cast (as per the wording of Ready Action) you've missed the boat and its too late, right?

Yes, and (thought it didn't make it into the SAC) it has been confirmed by the JC as intended (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/09/15/is-it-too-late-to-counter-a-readied-spell-that-has-been-triggered/). The spell is cast and can be Counterspelled the moment you take the Ready action, not when you take the reaction.

[Tanarii]

Note that in that case, you must select all targets, and have them in range, when you ready the spell. Not when you use reaction and trigger the spell.

[Rukelnikov]

Note that in that case, you must select all targets, and have them in range, when you ready the spell. Not when you use reaction and trigger the spell.

Nope, they must be in range when you take the action, which means when you release the spell. Taken from the SAC:

"For readying a spell or other action, does the target have to be in range? Your target must be within range when you take a readied action, not when you first ready it."

If it didn't work this way you couldn't, for example, do things like "Cast Hold Person on the first one that crosses the door"

[Tanarii]

Nope, they must be in range when you take the action, which means when you release the spell. Taken from the SAC:

"For readying a spell or other action, does the target have to be in range? Your target must be within range when you take a readied action, not when you first ready it."

If it didn't work this way you couldn't, for example, do things like "Cast Hold Person on the first one that crosses the door"
That is inconsistent with the spell being counter able at the time the action is readied, since the targets etc are selected when the spell is cast.

Edit: far be it from me to suggest that Crawford must be consistent. :smallamused: Just pointing out the inconsistency. I actually prefer that targets be selected and counter spelling occurs at the time the ready action is released.

[CorporateSlave]

That is inconsistent with the spell being counter able at the time the action is readied, since the targets etc are selected when the spell is cast.

Edit: far be it from me to suggest that Crawford must be consistent. :smallamused: Just pointing out the inconsistency. I actually prefer that targets be selected and counter spelling occurs at the time the ready action is released.

I see your point, although certainly plenty of spells have no such target requirement. In any case, I guess that gets chalked up to "you cast all of the spell except the designate the target bit, which is just the last little bit that becomes your trigger."

...as much as I hate to get bogged down into trying to break spell casting up into discrete bits...

I would figure it just one of those triumphs of Specific over General? Generally speaking your target must be in range ("a target you can see," etc) to Cast a Spell (that has such a target requirement anyway), but when you are performing the Specific Ready Action, your casting of the spell and visualization of the target do not need to happen at the same time (although the spell - and slot - is wasted if your target trigger does not come within range).

Of course, that's just my reasoning based on the SA ruling. If you don't like SA rulings, I could see making Ready Action simply not work with spells that require a target visualized or within range per the casting description. A Fireball could still work, since you're just aiming at a point in range, not any specific creature targets.

It makes logical sense to me though, and I feel it keeps perfectly well with the RAI (and RAW if you count SA).

[Tanarii]

Of course, that's just my reasoning based on the SA ruling. If you don't like SA rulings,
I like Sage Advice, or at least I like Crawford as the Sage in combination with the Sage Advice Compnedium that results.

But liking SAC this time around is exactly why inconsistency bothers me.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I think the rules don't say at which specific point or points during non-atomic casting that casting conditions must apply? Otherwise we would know if you can...

... start casting a spell with a casting time longer than 1 round within range/LOE and move outside of range/LOE before finishing...

... or start casting a spell with a casting time longer than 1 round outside of range/LOE and move within range/LOE before finishing...

... or start and finish casting a spell with a casting time longer than 1 round within range/LOE but move outside of range/LOE at some intermediate point...

... but as far as I know we don't.