Unpopular opinion: Ready Actions should be strictly better than normal Actions

[Man_Over_Game]

Ready Actions carry more risk (can be wasted, enemy can adapt around your telegraphed effects).
Ready Actions come with greater cost (Concentration, costs a Reaction, can't use Extra Attack).
They're more interesting (they require players to anticipate events happening in the current moment, as opposed to just auto-using the stuff on their character sheet like normal)


I'm of the opinion that Ready Actions are, overall, a lot more fun for the game, it's just a shame that they suck so players have no reason to leverage them. I have ideas about improving them (like using them in conjunction with the environment or an enemy action always results in Dis/Advantage in your favor), but that's a personal thing.

How do you feel about Ready Actions? Do they deserve some love, or are they just another mechanic worth ignoring?

[NorthernPhoenix]

I disagree, and the my reason for that is that i think "Ready Actions", if encouraged to be overused, encourage over-cautious play, which i do not enjoy. If anyone has a way to square that circle, I'd be happy to hear it.

[traskomancer]

They're definitely fun, but I think if everyone defaulted to them/used them significantly more, initiative would become essentially meaningless, and that would kind of break D&D combat.

Also, I'd argue getting to act outside of your initiative turn is a tangible benefit that at least somewhat offsets the downsides in and of itself.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I disagree, and the my reason for that is that i think "Ready Actions", if encouraged to be overused, encourage over-cautious play, which i do not enjoy. If anyone has a way to square that circle, I'd be happy to hear it.


They're definitely fun, but I think if everyone defaulted to them/used them significantly more, initiative would become essentially meaningless, and that would kind of break D&D combat.

Also, I'd argue getting to act outside of your initiative turn is a tangible benefit that at least somewhat offsets the downsides in and of itself.

I agree with both of these.

Ready actions are exceptions, and exceptions should be exceptional since they carry heavy table-time costs (since they interrupt the normal flow by their nature). If they're strictly better than regular ones, that incentivizes the kind of "tactical" play that bogs everything down.

Ready an Action should be reserved (IMO) for two cases:
* I want to interact with the environment in a way that makes no sense until an enemy moves into position (pulling a lever to drop a trap, etc)
* I have no way of acting meaningfully at my current place in the initiative order (all enemies are out of line of sight, your path forward is blocked, etc).

As such, Ready an Action is a consolation prize. It's there so you don't totally waste your turn. That's it (IMO).

[Man_Over_Game]

I disagree, and the my reason for that is that i think "Ready Actions", if encouraged to be overused, encourage over-cautious play, which i do not enjoy. If anyone has a way to square that circle, I'd be happy to hear it.

Counterargument, I'd say that the risks and costs with this kind of solution more than make up for that. Casters have to spend their Concentration and their Reaction, meaning that they can't hold onto any buffs and can't protect themselves with things like Shield, which makes them pretty good targets to focus on. Martials sacrifice a bit less in that regard, except for the fact that they lose out on Extra Attack (which cuts their DPR by 50%, which is not compensated enough by Advantage).

The only playstyle I could foresee getting a lot of value out of this is the Rogue, which is exactly the kind of gameplay you'd expect from them in the first place. Considering those that would use this playstyle would probably have Advantage in the first place (like through Stealth or buffs), it isn't adding much that they can't already get.




As such, Ready an Action is a consolation prize. It's there so you don't totally waste your turn. That's it (IMO).

We already have those. Dodge Action, Open Hand healing move, casting a buff, the Help Action, Guidance, etc. We have half a dozen ways to waste your turn on a consolation prize, I think it's time to start making some of them worthwhile. Personally, I'm tired of "I press the Attack Button" through 50% of combat.


In fact, I'd like to see a version of the Ready Action that was too strong (and not in a niche way, like Action Surge + Rogue). Something that has to get nerfed. Until we've hit that point, I'm not sure what the benefit is for making it a poor tool. More valid options rarely makes a game worse.

[Mastikator]

DM a game with this as your house rule. Tell us how it went.

IMO I think the way they work is fine, the attack option should be the main one for attacking PCs. If you want special effects then there are classes and sub classes that can accommodate that quite well.

[JackPhoenix]

In fact, I'd like to see a version of the Ready Action that was too strong (and not in a niche way, like Action Surge + Rogue). Something that has to get nerfed. Until we've hit that point, I'm not sure what the benefit is for making it a poor tool. More valid options rarely makes a game worse.[/FONT]

That's.... just why? Why *intentionally* make a rule that needs to be toned down before it's usable? It's one thing to do it by accident, but deliberately, that's just stupid. Just save everyone the time and ink, and use the balanced version outright.

[KorvinStarmast]

IMO I think the way they work is fine, the attack option should be the main one for attacking PCs. If you want special effects then there are classes and sub classes that can accommodate that quite well. A level five monk ought to get both attacks, not just one, with a readied action. that's my one complaint.
That makes it better than a reaction, but not better than an action per the OPs suggestion.

[Hairfish]

Part of the problem with buffing Ready is that you start to run into the "everyone uses Hold" traffic jams common to 3rd edition.

[Man_Over_Game]

That's.... just why? Why *intentionally* make a rule that needs to be toned down before it's usable? It's one thing to do it by accident, but deliberately, that's just stupid. Just save everyone the time and ink, and use the balanced version outright.

Because I'm implying that it's ridiculous from a balance viewpoint to have them be unusable. If they're balanced, why is it hard to overstep their use to create something that's too strong?

It's rhetoric, a challenge for someone to show me why I'm wrong.

From my perspective, it's like a bunch of folks are defending the Banneret and saying that it'd be too OP if it had a buff. My suggestion is to give it the buff and prove me wrong. I certainly can't find a way to implement Ready Actions in a way that makes people actually care about them without a buttload of hacks, and it'd be interesting to see how other folks would manage.



That makes it better than a reaction, but not better than an action per the OPs suggestion.

Even then, it's still at a major loss since the Monk loses out on his Unarmed Strike or most of his subclass features. The game naturally has mechanics in place that would keep the Ready Action from ever being too good, which is why I think it's a bit odd that folks are implying that making that happen is too easy to be worth considering.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Because I'm implying that it's ridiculous from a balance viewpoint to have them be unusable. If they're balanced, why is it so hard to implement them in a way that's too strong?

They're not unusable. They have two very clear uses, as I mentioned. Cases where they're better than the other options AND where they enable narrative elements that you'd otherwise not be able to do.

Sure, they're not the most efficient use of your turn. That's by design. Because they jam up the flow. Exceptions should not be used for flow control. Because interruptions have massive costs for gameplay. They are annoying to deal with, require everyone to be paying perfect attention all the time or risk having to roll-back actions, require spot adjudication from multiple people, and generally bog things down 10x. They should come with a large penalty so that they only are used when nothing else that doesn't interrupt the flow will work.

One of the design goals of 5e was to disincentivize "turn optimization". The goal was for people to take their Action, move, and be done, passing control to someone else. Not try to figure out the "optimal" thing to do, bogging things down. A bunch of smaller actions by many people were explicitly preferred to a few big actions by a few people.

[OldTrees1]

Readied actions have the advantage of controlled timing. This includes delaying, interrupting, and reacting.

The action itself does not need to be upgraded to "strictly better" merely because the character readied the action. Instead I suggest allowing control over timing to be useful. This can be in feature design (why can't a Barbarian knock an enemy back 10ft+ with a club?) or in encounter design (do obstacles/hazards exist?).

When you control timing you can:
1) Deny actions. The Thug wants to charge you with their mace? Can you time your action so you get the full benefit of your action AND disrupt their charge?
2) Sequence actions. You want to cast Fireball but an ally wants to get out of the way first.
3) Win Game Theory by reversing who acts first.

[Man_Over_Game]

Sure, they're not the most efficient use of your turn. That's by design. Because they jam up the flow. Exceptions should not be used for flow control. Because interruptions have massive costs for gameplay. They are annoying to deal with, require everyone to be paying perfect attention all the time or risk having to roll-back actions, require spot adjudication from multiple people, and generally bog things down 10x. They should come with a large penalty so that they only are used when nothing else that doesn't interrupt the flow will work.

One of the design goals of 5e was to disincentivize "turn optimization". The goal was for people to take their Action, move, and be done, passing control to someone else. Not try to figure out the "optimal" thing to do, bogging things down. A bunch of smaller actions by many people were explicitly preferred to a few big actions by a few people.

That's a fair point, just kind of a shame. One of the things folks brought up elsewhere on the forum was the lack of delay between intent-and-action in DnD, which is why they don't like it. You say you're going to do something, DM rolls, it happens or it doesn't and you move on. There's no time for other players or NPCs to interact without pausing the game mechanics mid-roll in a jury-rigged solution that the DM came up with on the spot.

Telegraphing is fun. Very fun. Video games have been adding more and more telegraphing over the last 10 or so years just because devs realized how important telegraphing is for player enjoyment, since it means they can adapt around their mistakes and feel rewarded for taking calculated risks.

I can agree that it makes things simpler, but I guess after 7 years, the simplicity just isn't quite as novel anymore. I'd like to enjoy more than waiting for half the roster to use the Attack Action with the same ~10 damage and ~+7 to hit 2-3 times per turn, and so I thought some diversity would do the game good.

But based on the responses, I guess I'm the odd man out on that front, "Unpopular Opinion" indeed.

[solidork]

I could see there being a Tactician feat that, say, lets you benefit from Extra Attack when you ready an attack or Ready a spell without using concentration.

But arguing that it should be BETTER than normal actions is very strange to me. Do you really want people to spend their turn doing stuff like "I ready to attack the goblin standing next to me as soon as it moves or does anything" instead of just attacking? Because that is what would happen - people would set up trivial triggers that they are sure will happen and you haven't really accomplished anything except make your combat system unnecessarily obscure.

[KorvinStarmast]

No free lunch. Do you want to ready/delay? Then you pay an opportunity cost for doing so.

I just feel that the current cost is too steep for martials.

Also, the standard unarmed strike is a bonus action.
It's a different piece of the action economy.

I will once again voice my support for "please, no delay traffic jams" with the others.

Ever play poker where everyone goes "check" as the hand starts? It's does nothing for the game.
Combat is fast, furious, and chaotic! Your proposal robs it of that level of feel and touch of verisimilitude.
Not a fan. That is all.

[Man_Over_Game]

I could see there being a Tactician feat that, say, lets you benefit from Extra Attack when you ready an attack or Ready a spell without using concentration.

But arguing that it should be BETTER than normal actions is very strange to me. Do you really want people to spend their turn doing stuff like "I ready to attack the goblin standing next to me as soon as it moves or does anything" instead of just attacking? Because that is what would happen - people would set up trivial triggers that they are sure will happen and you haven't really accomplished anything except make your combat system unnecessarily obscure.

It was a hypothetical question. Until there can be a use for it that's too good, there's not much of a valid reason to not make it better. At least, that's the idea.

As for your concern directly, I mentioned it earlier but I'd probably limit it to specific things the enemy has to do, or involve something specific to the environment. There has to be a reasonable reason for it to be considered a "risk" in the first place, otherwise there's no point in rewarding it.



Also, the standard unarmed strike is a bonus action.
It's a different piece of the action economy.

It is, but inaccessible due to not making an attack with your Action. Just like how Divine Smite only functions on your turn. There are always going to be a plethora of valid reasons not to Ready an Action, so adding a few good reasons to didn't seem to be a cause for alarm.

[MrStabby]

I think readied actions are about ok. It gives enough of an incentive to be proactive, to seize the initiative and to push combat forwards whilst at the same time helping avoid turns/circumstances being a complete waste.

The idea of a game session with two hostile parties daring the other to step through the door and being a trial of stubbornness between the DM and players just doesn't appeal to me.

Turns could get so drawn out with everyone wanting to work out not only the optimal thing to do but the optimal time to do it. I think you Play the Turn the Game Gives You.

[Thunderous Mojo]

A level five monk ought to get both attacks, not just one, with a readied action. that's my one complaint.
That makes it better than a reaction, but not better than an action per the OPs suggestion.

I agree wholeheartedly, and as a DM, that is how I run it.

I think a particular style of play, is also required... An Encounter needs to either arise or be constructed to encourage players to to think in "If This Happens, Then I do That".

Some groups/games do like to 'synchronize' their actions.

The Ready Action as written has some rules quagmires in it such as reading the Dash action.....(/Admiral Akbar Mode/ It's A Trap!/Admiral Akbar Mode/)

[NorthernPhoenix]

Counterargument, I'd say that the risks and costs with this kind of solution more than make up for that. Casters have to spend their Concentration and their Reaction, meaning that they can't hold onto any buffs and can't protect themselves with things like Shield, which makes them pretty good targets to focus on. Martials sacrifice a bit less in that regard, except for the fact that they lose out on Extra Attack (which cuts their DPR by 50%, which is not compensated enough by Advantage).

The only playstyle I could foresee getting a lot of value out of this is the Rogue, which is exactly the kind of gameplay you'd expect from them in the first place. Considering those that would use this playstyle would probably have Advantage in the first place (like through Stealth or buffs), it isn't adding much that they can't already get.



We already have those. Dodge Action, Open Hand healing move, casting a buff, the Help Action, Guidance, etc. We have half a dozen ways to waste your turn on a consolation prize, I think it's time to start making some of them worthwhile. Personally, I'm tired of "I press the Attack Button" through 50% of combat.


In fact, I'd like to see a version of the Ready Action that was too strong (and not in a niche way, like Action Surge + Rogue). Something that has to get nerfed. Until we've hit that point, I'm not sure what the benefit is for making it a poor tool. More valid options rarely makes a game worse.

I think you missed what i was saying. I personally don't want any sort of mechanic that (further) encourages or rewards slowly creeping around corners or opening doors saying "i Ready to Attack anyone who might approach/is standing there" or anything similar to that. I know some people really enjoy "10 foot pole gameplay", but i personally don't.

[Keravath]

I think Ready Actions are more or less ok where they are. They are supposed to be more costly since acting on your turn is more efficient. Several posters had good reasons to justify the current system.

The main tweak I would consider would be allowing the use of Extra Attack when using a Readied Attack action. The other Ready Actions don't really impose a similar penalty. Readied cantrips at tier 2 or more still do more damage and possibly even allow targeting more than one creature. They still require your reaction and concentration so their is a significant cost but a Ready Attack action in tier 2+ reduces potential damage to 1/2, 1/3, or 1/4 (since it only allows for one attack) as well as losing possible bonus action attacks which could only have been taken on your turn.

[MrStabby]

The main tweak I would consider would be allowing the use of Extra Attack when using a Readied Attack action. The other Ready Actions don't really impose a similar penalty. Readied cantrips at tier 2 or more still do more damage and possibly even allow targeting more than one creature. They still require your reaction and concentration so their is a significant cost but a Ready Attack action in tier 2+ reduces potential damage to 1/2, 1/3, or 1/4 (since it only allows for one attack) as well as losing possible bonus action attacks which could only have been taken on your turn.

I would say the most common use of a readied action is to hit something that you can't yet see/target but anticipate you will in the future.

Cantrips, as a spell are very limited here. When readying a spell you cast the spell as your action, which requires all the normal conditions to be met at that time for eligible targets which often includes knowing they exist or seeing them. The much more restrictive use of the cast a spell action vs the attack action evens out any disparity in damage (in my mind) in those edge cases where it works (say hitting someone with a cantrip if they turn hostile or readying an eldritch blast for when their shield spell ends).

[Xervous]

If anything it feels like this highlights some awkwardness in D&Ds multiple attack rolls.

[quindraco]

Part of the problem with buffing Ready is that you start to run into the "everyone uses Hold" traffic jams common to 3rd edition.

Exactly this. If Ready is too good, then the optimal way for everyone to fight is intersecting Readies, and either nothing happens at all during combat (if the Readies fizzle) or everything does, in which case you accomplished nothing by making everyone engage in the Ready mechanic.

That's not to say Ready is perfect as-is; far too many abilities just stop working when Readied, like Extra Attack, for no compelling reason. You could upgrade it by letting it override only-on-turn mechanics and it wouldn't be OP - for example with Extra Attack, Readied Eldritch Blast isn't making every other build obsolete or anything. People play things that aren't Warlocks all the time. So we know it's fine to let Extra Attack work when Readied.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Kinda sounds like you want to play with an alternative initiative variant similar to that Greyhawk UA a long time ago, it will effectively accomplish the same thing by removing the ready action that you intend to do by putting excessive focus on it.

I never had the chance to test this initiative variant (the campaign I had intended to run with this fell through) but my gut says that it's a better way to encourage dynamic decision making than making Ready Action the best default, which as has been pointed out, would have a drastic effect on initiative regardless.

More on topic, I don't have a problem with the ready action... Or rather, I wouldn't if it weren't a bit of a meta-gaming magnet. I've had rare occasions where a player readies an action and the DM has monsters act in a way that loses the players turn, which sucks. Similarly, I've been a DM who has used readied actions against players and they very often felt it was unfair that the monsters were given an option to prepare other than sitting stock still waiting for the players to engage first. None of the infrequent issues I have with the action have much to do with its mechanical balance, just how the table ends up feeling about its implementation.

[Unoriginal]

Video game makers have been putting telegraphing in some games because giving the players something to react to is generally better than "two characters/units do their respective actions blindly".

A classic example: the boxers in Punch Out! have set patterns and moves they telegraph so you can learn them. As a result Punch Out! is basically a rhythm game.

A more recent example: some duels in Ghost of Tsushima start with what is essentially a mini-game where the player must press the button at the right moment to make the MC draw their blade and slay their enemy, iajutsu-style, so the enemy has to have set patterns and telegraph what they're about to do.

Since a TTRPG has the enemies follow what the DM wants them to do and the PCs follow what the players want them to do, without the limitations of a computer nor the desire of having a specific person learn the patterns, then telegraphing in the same the way video games do would be an exercise in frustration at best.

That isn't to say telegraphing doesn't exist in 5e or that it shouldn't. I'm just saying it's not the same way than video games do it, as the goal and consequences would be different

[Man_Over_Game]

Video game makers have been putting telegraphing in some games because giving the players something to react to is generally better than "two characters/units do their respective actions blindly".

A classic example: the boxers in Punch Out! have set patterns and moves they telegraph so you can learn them. As a result Punch Out! is basically a rhythm game.

A more recent example: some duels in Ghost of Tsushima start with what is essentially a mini-game where the player must press the button at the right moment to make the MC draw their blade and slay their enemy, iajutsu-style, so the enemy has to have set patterns and telegraph what they're about to do.

Since a TTRPG has the enemies follow what the DM wants them to do and the PCs follow what the players want them to do, without the limitations of a computer nor the desire of having a specific person learn the patterns, then telegraphing in the same the way video games do would be an exercise in frustration at best.

That isn't to say telegraphing doesn't exist in 5e or that it shouldn't. I'm just saying it's not the same way than video games do it, as the goal and consequences would be different

I can say that the lack of it in 5e is pretty obvious and frustrating. I could give a highly persuasive speech, just to have my attempt be valued as a 4. I could attempt a jump and whiff it so bad that I fall into the pit, despite the fact that nobody should have to guess how far they can jump. Even the combat maneuvers that are telegraphed (Dodge, Ready Action) are subpar and don't have any builds that can better leverage them (besides niche examples like Dwarven Monk with Dodge).

Telegraphing also adds room for player interactivity, which is why it's so important on badguys. Problem is, none of the core mechanics actually leave much room for interacting with each other. Group skill checks are awkward, spamming Guidance, shouting "I take the Help Action" after every skill check, stopping people from doing stupid things, the list goes on.

I guess the solution I was trying to make is to make more room for players to interact with stuff, make their decisions matter a little more, maybe incorporate their friends more in things, as well as accept a little risk for a gain (which is something the game seems to avoid).

But maybe the Ready Action isn't the telegraphing mechanic that needs attention. You guys have made a fair point that it messes with combat flow and shouldn't be incentivized, and I appreciate that. I guess it's time I look somewhere else, then.

[PhantomSoul]

I can say that the lack of it in 5e is pretty obvious and frustrating. I could give a highly persuasive speech, just to have my attempt be valued as a 4.

Sometimes the speech doesn't land, lands on ears for which it's the wrong speech, or isn't as good as you imagine it to be, yupp!


I could attempt a jump and whiff it so bad that I fall into the pit, despite the fact that nobody should have to guess how far they can jump.

I don't, in fact, know how far I can jump in a given instance, only having a very rough idea... which is already much worse than RAW, where you might have a very good idea for a normal jump given the consistency of your Strength Score.



But maybe the Ready Action isn't the telegraphing mechanic that needs attention. You guys have made a fair point that it messes with combat flow and shouldn't be incentivized, and I appreciate that. I guess it's time I look somewhere else, then.

I keep imagining that there's some way to adapt the PF2 three-action system into (roughly) single-action systems where you get the telegraphing aspect by having the lowercase action finish only when all parts of an uppercase Action are complete (e.g. a three-part spell casts at the end, with foreshadowing of the spell during those previous parts). I haven't invested much time into the thought because there are some hurdles to deal with anyhow haha

[Man_Over_Game]

I don't, in fact, know how far I can jump in a given instance, only having a very rough idea... which is already much worse than RAW, where you might have a very good idea for a normal jump given the consistency of your Strength Score.


To be fair, though, when's the last time you tried to jump?

:tongue:

[Kane0]

Ready Actions carry more risk (can be wasted, enemy can adapt around your telegraphed effects).
Ready Actions come with greater cost (Concentration, costs a Reaction, can't use Extra Attack).
They're more interesting (they require players to anticipate events happening in the current moment, as opposed to just auto-using the stuff on their character sheet like normal)


I'm of the opinion that Ready Actions are, overall, a lot more fun for the game, it's just a shame that they suck so players have no reason to leverage them. I have ideas about improving them (like using them in conjunction with the environment or an enemy action always results in Dis/Advantage in your favor), but that's a personal thing.

How do you feel about Ready Actions? Do they deserve some love, or are they just another mechanic worth ignoring?

Youre right, however making delayed/ready actions more desirable than acting in the moment would lengthen combat and I'm happy keeping 5e fights short and sharp. If i've only got three hours in a night i'd like to squeeze in more than one combat if needed.

[PhantomSoul]

To be fair, though, when's the last time you tried to jump?

:tongue:

Over and around puddles quite recently! :P

[Saelethil]

I didn’t realize it took concentration, none of my groups have followed that rule. We also decided that you are holding an “action” this doesn’t effect casters but it does help martials keep up. I don’t feel like it’s over powered but it does allow for a little more teamwork (Paladin waiting for a monster to be knocked out of a tree). It’s not really more powerful than attacking on your turn regularly so we don’t do it often but it is much less restrictive.

[sayaijin]

I'm inclined to agree with others here. If everyone can ready an action that is equal to or better than a regular action, then it could bog the game down a lot trying to figure out what the right trigger should be for the action you want to do and messing up initiative. [Now you need an initiative tracker for both regular turn order and readied action order]

That being said, while I don't think everyone should do it, I think you could make an interesting subclass that gets bonuses for readying an action. Based on the flavor of readying vs regular action and who benefits from it the most, I'd make it a Rogue subclass, but that's me.

[RSP]

I could give a highly persuasive speech, just to have my attempt be valued as a 4.

There’s a difference between what the player can do, and what the character can do. If you rolled a 4, the Player might have had more success than the character. That’s how it’s supposed to be, otherwise, Players get free proficiency and successes, by showing what they can do rather than what their characters can do.

One houserule I like: if you Ready the Dash Action, you can move anytime before your next turn, up to your movement. This can be broken up so you can move 10’ in response to the goblin advancing, but then 15’ toward the Wizard that just dropped.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There’s a difference between what the player can do, and what the character can do. If you rolled a 4, the Player might have had more success than the character. That’s how it’s supposed to be, otherwise, Players get free proficiency and successes, by showing what they can do rather than what their characters can do.


Not only that, but the dice roll is better thought of as not how well the character did. That's part of the modifier. The dice roll is about uncertainty. All the random factors that the character is unaware of/not in control of, such as the mental frame/etc of the other party of the conversation. Conversations have two sides. And the PC only controls one side of that.

[Reach Weapon]

But maybe the Ready Action isn't the telegraphing mechanic that needs attention. You guys have made a fair point that it messes with combat flow and shouldn't be incentivized, and I appreciate that. I guess it's time I look somewhere else, then.
Yeah, I think it'd make more sense to rewrite the combat engine than to try to do any of this with more powerful readied actions. That said, I am now convinced that excluding movement from not-exclusively movement readied actions is wrong. I'm just trying to decide if I'd limit it, perhaps to the least of 10', half the character's speed, or it's remaining movement.

[FrancisBean]

I didn’t realize it took concentration, none of my groups have followed that rule. We also decided that you are holding an “action” this doesn’t effect casters but it does help martials keep up.

Both of these points led to some hard feelings in a game I ran recently, because the DM (me) knew the rules but some of the players didn't. The concentration rule in particular is a little obscure to most people. And then there's the whole "I want to ready an action before we roll initiative" issue! We had a thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?589384-Ready-out-of-combat) on few years back. (Well beyond the necro threshold!)

I keep waffling on whether I'd want to see a "Reduce my Initiative" action, where you can set your initiative to a new, lower number on your turn. (And then get your turn when it comes up later that round.) It's just that there are so many weird edge cases that I don't think it could ever be made loophole-free. E.g., it gets you a new save on a lot of spells. It could also create a race to -∞ if two people have a reason to want to go last.

[Witty Username]

I mean if you are reading an action, it is for a purpose most of the time, waiting for the rogue to clear out before you cast hypnotic pattern or waiting out for a flanking bonus.
That means when you want to use it, it is better.
Unless you mean Ready should buffed to be better more often?
Allow pre-combat ready actions? That's a start.

[kazaryu]

Ready Actions carry more risk (can be wasted, enemy can adapt around your telegraphed effects).
Ready Actions come with greater cost (Concentration, costs a Reaction, can't use Extra Attack).
They're more interesting (they require players to anticipate events happening in the current moment, as opposed to just auto-using the stuff on their character sheet like normal)


I'm of the opinion that Ready Actions are, overall, a lot more fun for the game, it's just a shame that they suck so players have no reason to leverage them. I have ideas about improving them (like using them in conjunction with the environment or an enemy action always results in Dis/Advantage in your favor), but that's a personal thing.

How do you feel about Ready Actions? Do they deserve some love, or are they just another mechanic worth ignoring?

I don't think readied actions specifically needs a buff. i DO think that (for martials) many of the actions that aren't the Attack Action needs buffs so that they're as worthwhile, and thus martials don't feel as pigeonholed. but idk that it needs much of a buff in effect. i'd rather instead it be less of a nerf. so like, martials don't lose extra attack, caster's don't need to use concentration (or maybe for caster's its like a pseudo concentration. where damage can interupt the spell if you fail the con save, but it doesn't force you to drop a concentration spell just to ready a spell). point being with the readied action you lose less to do it, rather than you gain more from it.

[PhantomSoul]

Allow pre-combat ready actions? That's a start.

Oh please no -- stick with just rolling Initiative and determining whether Surprise is applicable.

[DwarfFighter]

Exactly how does OP suggest Readied actions be improved?

Is already a fair balance: you ready an action you have NOW for dealing with a situation that currently does not exist but that you consider likely will happen.

E.g. The orcs are coming and they are now 50 ft. away. You can't reach them on your turn unless you Dash, but you are confident they will move to melee range on their turn so you Ready an Attack action for that.

[Chronos]

I look at it this way: If readied actions were absolutely subpar, then you'd never see them come up. But at my table, at least, we do see them, fairly frequently. So they're already good enough, in at least some situations. Always? Of course not. Nor should they be.

[Person_Man]

People with a strong interest in changing Ready Actions may want to consider Team Initiative instead. Instead of rolling for Initiative, whoever initiates combat (players or enemies) goes first as a team, in whatever order they prefer. You only roll initiative if two groups completely stumble into of each other (very rare as at least one person on either side will make a Perception Check), or players can’t agree on their order (also very rare). In practice, this means players go first as a team in most combats, unless they are ambushed.

This encourages players to work together, sets them up to make combos, negates much of the need for readied actions, and makes combat go much more quickly, especially on the DM side. (If there are ten goblins making the same type of attack, you can just roll 10 dice at once). It also makes combat easier, though this is solved by just adding a few more enemies or making them a bit stronger.

I’ve DM’d this a number of times and it can work wonders if the players are on board with trying it. (If they’re not, it won’t. Rolling initiative is just too iconic and engrained in many players minds).

[Man_Over_Game]

Exactly how does OP suggest Readied actions be improved?

Is already a fair balance: you ready an action you have NOW for dealing with a situation that currently does not exist but that you consider likely will happen.

E.g. The orcs are coming and they are now 50 ft. away. You can't reach them on your turn unless you Dash, but you are confident they will move to melee range on their turn so you Ready an Attack action for that.

The option for thrown/ranged weapons, as well as the usual distance between groups on a battle mat, kinda invalidates most range problems.

The larger the battle area, the more things there are that have to be interesting, which means more work and more risk that it will become stale. Inversely, the smaller the battle area, the more important each individual action and interaction is.

As a result, most of the best fights don't actually seem to start more than 60 feet away. It's just one of those unfortunate design choices they made with 5e. *I think they decided that grid rules were optional to try and deal with the problem of battle mats being too large (otherwise it runs counter to the whole philosophy that simple=better), and then didn't bother designing the rest of the system around a non-battle mat game style*. Hell, 5e doesn't even seem like it could feasibly fit a Theater of the Mind format with the way it's written, despite that being the default that the game implies it should be played.

I think they didn't have the time/the effort to properly design those sections around the rest of the game, so they called them "variant rules" and said that the 'core' gameplay was perfect, which is why half the PHB feats and half of the multiclassing combinations (like Caster/Caster, Caster/Rogue, Martial 5/Martial 5) are hot garbage.

[NorthernPhoenix]

People with a strong interest in changing Ready Actions may want to consider Team Initiative instead. Instead of rolling for Initiative, whoever initiates combat (players or enemies) goes first as a team, in whatever order they prefer. You only roll initiative if two groups completely stumble into of each other (very rare as at least one person on either side will make a Perception Check), or players can’t agree on their order (also very rare). In practice, this means players go first as a team in most combats, unless they are ambushed.

This encourages players to work together, sets them up to make combos, negates much of the need for readied actions, and makes combat go much more quickly, especially on the DM side. (If there are ten goblins making the same type of attack, you can just roll 10 dice at once). It also makes combat easier, though this is solved by just adding a few more enemies or making them a bit stronger.

I’ve DM’d this a number of times and it can work wonders if the players are on board with trying it. (If they’re not, it won’t. Rolling initiative is just too iconic and engrained in many players minds).

I think a useful idea for squaring that circle is to still roll initiative for each side, then have whichever side rolls better collectively (average, median, whatever you prefer) go first. After that, it's back and forth.

[GeneralVryth]

I actually agree with the premise of this thread, that ready actions are mechanically awful, and can feel like a hack to do things that should flow better within the system. I also agree over use of ready actions is liable to to drag things down because the initiative is not well built to handle it.

This is why I like MaxWilson's proposed alternative initiative system found here: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?630491-TSR-ish-5E-Max-Wilson-s-house-rules-doc (Complex changes number 4).

That system is designed around statements of actions/reactions/delaying to gather information and naturally flows in and out of combat. Which in theory solves many of the problems of the base initiative system not flexing to better support readied actions without bogging things down.

[Person_Man]

I think a useful idea for squaring that circle is to still roll initiative for each side, then have whichever side rolls better collectively (average, median, whatever you prefer) go first. After that, it's back and forth.

You could do that. Just be advised that whichever team wins initiative has a huge advantage. For this reason, I prefer to just let the players go first by default, do that I as a DM have a better idea of what to expect and how difficult to make the encounter. (I try and make a mix of easy, balanced, and hard encounters, but never so hard that the players are clearly going to die without extraordinary luck).

If the enemies all go first somewhar randomly as determined by initiative, combat can become crazy swingy/deadly.

[FrancisBean]

You could do that. Just be advised that whichever team wins initiative has a huge advantage. For this reason, I prefer to just let the players go first by default, do that I as a DM have a better idea of what to expect and how difficult to make the encounter. (I try and make a mix of easy, balanced, and hard encounters, but never so hard that the players are clearly going to die without extraordinary luck).

If the enemies all go first somewhar randomly as determined by initiative, combat can become crazy swingy/deadly.

...and you also generally know when the enemies will likely have surprise, so you can also adjust for that situation, too. Nice, simple, and probably makes the players feel awesome in combat. I'm too conservative to try it out before seeing it in action a time or two, but I suspect it works beautifully.

[Hytheter]

I'm going to second (third?) team initiative (or side initiative as I call it) as I have found it to work quite well. As described above I go by whoever initiates hostility, which in practice usually means the players go first and I am fine with this, I just have to make sure my encounters are tough enough to survive their opening salvo. Side intiative makes it way easier for the players to combo off of each other's attacks and avoid friendly AOE's, which sounds easier - but don't forget that it also lets the DM do the same with team monster. :smallamused:

[Arkhios]

Oddly enough I was just thinking about making an additional mechanical interaction for Dodge Action, and how to best implement it in game; reading this thread got me thinking: what if Readied Action was baked into the Dodge Action. Essentially, when you choose to take the Readied Action, you must spend your Action on your turn to Dodge, and if the prerequisite is met before your next turn, you make the Readied Action as your Reaction, and otherwise following rules for Readied Action as written.

[OldTrees1]

Oddly enough I was just thinking about making an additional mechanical interaction for Dodge Action, and how to best implement it in game; reading this thread got me thinking: what if Readied Action was baked into the Dodge Action. Essentially, when you choose to take the Readied Action, you must spend your Action on your turn to Dodge, and if the prerequisite is met before your next turn, you make the Readied Action as your Reaction, and otherwise following rules for Readied Action as written.

Rogue: So, I can ready an arrow for when my ally signals me to attack the target, and in exchange I lose nothing but gain Dodge?

Other Martial classes: So I get free dodge, but only if I sacrifice my extra attack?
Casters: So I get free dodge, but only if I use concentration and allow the spell to be disrupted before cast?

Given how 5E Readying has antisynergy with Extra Attack or Spellcasting, I think your idea generally makes sense. I would not immediately assume it makes sense in some later edition. However for 5E it makes sense. The Rogue will be buffed by your change aas a side effect.

[Temperjoke]

I could see buffing ready actions in certain circumstances, like when you have large scaled combat. It makes sense when you have one person that is giving orders that the other players ready their attacks keyed to that one person. Like in movies, the commander is yelling "hold" and then judges the time to tell "fire!" If you have one person sacrificing their attack to give the coordinated attack command, because they're concentrating on watching things, that would balance things. It wouldn't be able to be abused on smaller scale combat, or for normal dungeon crawling.