Attack speed & counterattacking

[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]

[QUOTE=NaughtyTiger;23922097]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.

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.