Commonly misunderstood rules

[Segev]

Is a bonus action precisely because you don’t get one unless something gives it to you. And you get at most one.

[Ashrym]

There were some arguments regarding spells and bonus actions.

"A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."


If the character uses a bonus action spell then according to that rule the character cannot cast a spell with a casting time of a reaction on that turn. Technically "a cantrip" means one even if using action surge for another action. Ignoring that (because I don't think it's RAI), action surge is an action on the same turn. It does not stipulate only casting a cantrip like a bonus action spell does, so if an eldritch knight casts a spell then action surges another spell can be cast, but if the eldritch knight can cast whatever spell. If the eldritch knight uses a bonus action he or she is then limited to cantrips of 1 action.

That's how I interpret this. Is there something I might be missing here?

[Keravath]

But at least they cannot act. So if they do not have anything that grants a reaction, they lose the whole round. Since the initiative roll should be triggered in this case by the party doing something, you could probably argue that the surprised guys did not have an action planned, which means they are essentially taking the "Ready" action of "I do nothing until After something happens," which would mean no reactions until AFTER the first PC finishes up. Ugh.

If they are surprised then they can't take any actions including the Ready action. However, after their turn has passed in the initiative order they can take reactions which could include shield, counterspell, opportunity attacks and similar abilities.

[Segev]

There were some arguments regarding spells and bonus actions.

"A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."


If the character uses a bonus action spell then according to that rule the character cannot cast a spell with a casting time of a reaction on that turn. Technically "a cantrip" means one even if using action surge for another action. Ignoring that (because I don't think it's RAI), action surge is an action on the same turn. It does not stipulate only casting a cantrip like a bonus action spell does, so if an eldritch knight casts a spell then action surges another spell can be cast, but if the eldritch knight can cast whatever spell. If the eldritch knight uses a bonus action he or she is then limited to cantrips of 1 action.

That's how I interpret this. Is there something I might be missing here?

Don’t confuse “turn” and “round.”

Reactions almost never happen on your turn.

[47Ace]

That one, I think, is more to do with attacking as an off hand weapon being a bonus action, which I personally think is a little silly. Let us get one swing with the off hand weapon as part of the attack action.

A bit off topic but, Why? Why do people insist on handing out a 5th level fighter feature to commoners as long as they are willing to look stupid by walking around with (presumable) two equal length weapons. Even the bonus action version is stupid, attacking is a full body action and there is nothing about having a weapon in your other hand that lets you move your body faster. Its like if the game included a non magical hot pink dress (with an unflattering cut) that any one could buy for 2gp (the same as a dagger) that let you cast fireball twice a day. Sure it would only be 4-5d6 and 15 foot radius but, it's still handing a 5th level wizard feature to a commoner at the low cost of looking silly. The base rule should have been if you have a light weapon in your off hand you gain +1 to AC so rapier and dagger works. Then as a feat you could get you extra attacks (because fantasy and special training) something comparable to GWM damage like -5 to hit take twice as many attacks.

[Keravath]

There were some arguments regarding spells and bonus actions.

"A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn. You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."


If the character uses a bonus action spell then according to that rule the character cannot cast a spell with a casting time of a reaction on that turn. Technically "a cantrip" means one even if using action surge for another action. Ignoring that (because I don't think it's RAI), action surge is an action on the same turn. It does not stipulate only casting a cantrip like a bonus action spell does, so if an eldritch knight casts a spell then action surges another spell can be cast, but if the eldritch knight can cast whatever spell. If the eldritch knight uses a bonus action he or she is then limited to cantrips of 1 action.

That's how I interpret this. Is there something I might be missing here?

You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

Combat is divided into rounds in which creatures actions are resolved in initiative order. A creature takes their turn when their initiative comes up.

If a creature casts ANY spell with a casting time of a bonus action then the ONLY other spells that can be cast on their turn (not round) are cantrips with a casting time of 1 action.

If a character uses action surge then they have TWO actions. Both of these can be used to cast a leveled spell as long as the character does not cast a bonus action spell.

If the character chooses to cast a bonus action spell (even a cantrip - e.g. via quicken) then no matter how many actions the character has, if they choose the Cast a Spell action, these spells are limited to a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

[Keltest]

A bit off topic but, Why? Why do people insist on handing out a 5th level fighter feature to commoners as long as they are willing to look stupid by walking around with (presumable) two equal length weapons. Even the bonus action version is stupid, attacking is a full body action and there is nothing about having a weapon in your other hand that lets you move your body faster. Its like if the game included a non magical hot pink dress (with an unflattering cut) that any one could buy for 2gp (the same as a dagger) that let you cast fireball twice a day. Sure it would only be 4-5d6 and 15 foot radius but, it's still handing a 5th level wizard feature to a commoner at the low cost of looking silly. The base rule should have been if you have a light weapon in your off hand you gain +1 to AC so rapier and dagger works. Then as a feat you could get you extra attacks (because fantasy and special training) something comparable to GWM damage like -5 to hit take twice as many attacks.

By default, you can only dual wield two light weapons, so without a feat you aren't ever going to go around dual wielding longswords. Your bonus action attack with this weapon also comes with an additional penality: you cant add your stat bonus (whichever is appropriate) to the damage. Youre also limited to one attack with this weapon per turn, ever, currently, even if you action surge. Its silly IMO that a level 20 fighter could conceivably attack 8 times with his main weapon in a turn, and an almighty one with his off hand.

[Darc_Vader]

By default, you can only dual wield two light weapons, so without a feat you aren't ever going to go around dual wielding longswords. Your bonus action attack with this weapon also comes with an additional penality: you cant add your stat bonus (whichever is appropriate) to the damage. Youre also limited to one attack with this weapon per turn, ever, currently, even if you action surge. Its silly IMO that a level 20 fighter could conceivably attack 8 times with his main weapon in a turn, and an almighty one with his off hand.

Well to be fair, there’s nothing stopping that Fighter from making 5 attacks with their ‘main’ weapon and 4 with the other. The intent behind the twf rule seems to be that having a second weapon just lets you sneak in one additional (weaker) attack on top of your other ones.

[Ashrym]

Don’t confuse “turn” and “round.”

Reactions almost never happen on your turn.

I'm not confused. Counterspelling a counterspell is when it comes up. The bonus action spell has no bearing on someone else's turn.

[Ashrym]

You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

Combat is divided into rounds in which creatures actions are resolved in initiative order. A creature takes their turn when their initiative comes up.

If a creature casts ANY spell with a casting time of a bonus action then the ONLY other spells that can be cast on their turn (not round) are cantrips with a casting time of 1 action.

If a character uses action surge then they have TWO actions. Both of these can be used to cast a leveled spell as long as the character does not cast a bonus action spell.

If the character chooses to cast a bonus action spell (even a cantrip - e.g. via quicken) then no matter how many actions the character has, if they choose the Cast a Spell action, these spells are limited to a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

Yes, that's how I interpret it, thank you.

[Segev]

I'm not confused. Counterspelling a counterspell is when it comes up. The bonus action spell has no bearing on someone else's turn.

Fair enough. In that case, yes, it would seem that the RAW are that, if you've cast a bonus action spell, and somebody counterspells it, you cannot counterspell the counterspell. Nor can you counterspell their counterspell if you cast a bonus action spell and they're counterspelling your normal-action cantrip. Of course, if they're counterspelling a cantrip....

[Man_Over_Game]

Lol. If you want to get really weird about it, is a Counterspelled spell count as being cast or not?

[47Ace]

By default, you can only dual wield two light weapons, so without a feat you aren't ever going to go around dual wielding longswords. Your bonus action attack with this weapon also comes with an additional penality: you cant add your stat bonus (whichever is appropriate) to the damage. Youre also limited to one attack with this weapon per turn, ever, currently, even if you action surge. Its silly IMO that a level 20 fighter could conceivably attack 8 times with his main weapon in a turn, and an almighty one with his off hand.

I am aware or the TWF damage limitations that's why my proposed fireball did less damage and have a smaller radius then a true fire ball. Yes TWF scales poorly (my proposal would scale) I just dislike any proposed solution that buffs it a low levels where the current rules are fine or too strong and even if it is fine at low levels I am apposed to handing out a gimped version of a higher level feature to everyone if they just look silly. I will also add that a 20th level fighter can attack 9 times total in any subdivision between their two weapons as long as at least one attack is made with each weapon.

[Segev]

Lol. If you want to get really weird about it, is a Counterspelled spell count as being cast or not?

You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell. If the creature is casting a spell of 3rd level or lower, its spell fails and has no effect. If it is casting a spell of 4th level or higher, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a success, the creature's spell fails and has no effect.

I see where the question arises from the first sentence, but it does say that if you succeed at counterspelling it, "the spell fails and has no effect." That suggests it was, in fact, cast...and failed. Not that the spellcaster failed to cast it. If it said, "The spellcaster fails..." or even better, "The spellcaster fails to cast the spell and it has no effect," then you'd be right. But it doesn't. So the spell is cast and countered, so it has no effect.

[Lyracian]

That paralysis gives auto crits to melee attacks. It makes any attack within 5 feet a critical hit. That means a melee Reach attack is not a crit, but standing next to someone with a Longbow, even if the attack roll has disadvantage (which would be a straight roll due to the advantage of paralyzed condition) would be a critical.

The amusing thing about this being a topic of misunderstood rules is you are not attacking with disadvantage.

Paralyzed (page 291) also makes the creature incapacitated.
Ranged Attacks in Close Combat (page 195) say disadvantage if within 5 feet of an enemy "who can see you and who is not incapacitated"

[MaxWilson]

The amusing thing about this being a topic of misunderstood rules is you are not attacking with disadvantage.

Paralyzed (page 291) also makes the creature incapacitated.
Ranged Attacks in Close Combat (page 195) say disadvantage if within 5 feet of an enemy "who can see you and who is not incapacitated"

You might not have disadvantage, but you may not have advantage either for various reasons (e.g. there's another non-incapacitated hostile within 5' of you), and that makes it quite interesting to still have an auto-crit if it hits.

[Pex]

So, if youre trying to pick a lock, theres no reason at all to let anybody besides the proficient rogue with the highest dex in the party do it, if theyre there to try. That's what you brought them for. Making a medicine check? Let the party doctor do it. Tracking? Let the ranger do it. Having the wizard try to track something just because they were the one who thought of it is silly, you have experts in these skills for a reason.

It is specifically mentioned that Tool Use requires proficiency. Thieves' tools are Tools. Tool Use is not the same thing as a Skill Check though both are Ability Checks.

No player should be shut down from trying something just because another character has a higher plus number.

[KorvinStarmast]

No player should be shut down from trying something just because another character has a higher plus number.

This is a good point.

[Pleh]

I think you misunderstand what levels of illumination dim light is representing. The easiest example to look at is probably the bright full moon. With that kind of lighting you could clearly see someone standing in the open but you probably will have a hard time identifying the exact color of their clothing.

This is good. I'm gonna have to save this for later.

Also, speaking from experience, yes. Under the light of a full moon or nearly full moon, the ground is quite visible. I wouldn't want to sprint across it, but I wouldn't want to do that in daylight either.

Vision rules as a whole are a mess because they are all based on very vague parameters. Dim light does not interfere with attacking in the game because dim light is still enough illumination to make that attack but is dim enough to interfere with perception.

That volume of light is probably visualized at different levels for each person but the rules act as a guideline.

So, kinda sorta. If you successfully hide from somebody, they don't know where you are. They can guess and deduce, and if they happen to guess right, they can make their attack with disadvantage, but if you duck behind a hedge, hide, and they assume youre continuing to move along the hedge when youre actually standing still and shoot where you aren't, theyre never going to hit you.

The DM decides what circumstances are appropriate for hiding, so if youre on a flat plane that is well lit and has one visual obstacle, you may be able to hide behind it, but theyre still going to know where you are, and no DM will let you sneak out from behind that blocker unless youre literally invisible. But if its a cluttered area and you can duck behind things without making a sound, then you can theoretically move around skyrim style without them knowing where you are at all.

I feel like the rules about attacking creatures while hidden from them also helps understand the RAI.

"If you are hidden - both unseen and unheard - when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

The act of attacking alerts the target that something in your location is attempting to attack them. This implies there is no way to make a subtle attack (unless there's a character option somewhere I don't know about).

But attacking only gives away your location, it doesn't necessarily mean the target can now fully perceive you.

Like, if you were under a Bright Moon for Dim Light, Lying Prone on a hill overlooking a patrolling guard, the guard likely isn't trying to be stealthy, but perceptive. You've got probably 3/4 cover and Dim Light gives him Disadvantage (unless he's got Darkvision). Firing a crossbow will tell him exactly where you are when you fired, but it doesn't mean he can suddenly see you. He's probably entitled to an active Perception check (still at disadvantage) to try to spot you immediately, but failing that, he would probably need to try to reach your position to find you. Assuming you get a chance to move before he can get close enough for a second look, you should be entitled to attempting to move with a Dex Stealth check to relocate without letting him know where you've gone.

I think a better way of describing "Hiding" is that you're just taking action to hide what you're doing. That might mean you get Advantage on your next attack, or that you've moved to another location, or that you've made yourself scarce.

But overall, it just means that the enemy doesn't know what you're doing next. Hiding doesn't interact with anything you or your enemy did do, only what they will do.

It's pretty clear that Hiding makes them not able to see you. Or pick out your presence by hearing or other senses, for that matter. They might still know (or at least suspect) you're around. They might guess - even possibly accurately - where you're hiding. But they can't perceive you.

Yeah, "it just means that the enemy doesn't know what you're doing next" sounds an awful lot like you're talking about Feinting, which isn't a Rogue thing anymore. That's now a Battlemaster maneuver that Rogues can get with a feat. I don't think hiding has anything to do with "hiding (intentions) in plain sight."

Rather, it means any Rogue has their own special mini-game: constantly look for opportunities to hide. You keep track of locations that could give a reasonable amount of cover to hide behind, track the shadowy corners of a tavern where Dim Lighting may give enemies disadvantage to notice you, interactable objects that could be turned into a distraction (giving an opportunity to hide).

Blowing out the lights and hiding to get the upper hand is a classic Rogue Trope.

You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

Combat is divided into rounds in which creatures actions are resolved in initiative order. A creature takes their turn when their initiative comes up.

If a creature casts ANY spell with a casting time of a bonus action then the ONLY other spells that can be cast on their turn (not round) are cantrips with a casting time of 1 action.

If a character uses action surge then they have TWO actions. Both of these can be used to cast a leveled spell as long as the character does not cast a bonus action spell.

If the character chooses to cast a bonus action spell (even a cantrip - e.g. via quicken) then no matter how many actions the character has, if they choose the Cast a Spell action, these spells are limited to a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

This is... unfortunately convoluted. Seems like the game makers stumbled a bit on the way to making things streamlined.

[Segev]

Rather, it means any Rogue has their own special mini-game: constantly look for opportunities to hide. You keep track of locations that could give a reasonable amount of cover to hide behind, track the shadowy corners of a tavern where Dim Lighting may give enemies disadvantage to notice you, interactable objects that could be turned into a distraction (giving an opportunity to hide).

Blowing out the lights and hiding to get the upper hand is a classic Rogue Trope.

I like the mental image this evokes. The rogue is playing at being the horror monster. Attacking and fading away.

[Millstone85]

It is specifically mentioned that Tool Use requires proficiency.

It is not. You need not be proficient with a tool to use it. That just lets you add your proficiency bonus to the ability check.

Now, in the case of picking a lock, specifically the lock you can purchase as adventuring gear in the PHB, you do need proficiency with thieves' tools. I thought it extended to all locks, but apparently not.

[Misterwhisper]

Finding someone hidden is not free.

There is no: perception check to find the hidden enemy.

It is: i spend my action to make a check to find the hidden enemy.


———————————

Using movement is not an action, nor is it part of an action.

———————————

By the book performance does almost nothing.
Playing an instrument is tool use and dex not performance.
Trying to use performance to distract someone is deception not performance.
Convincing people to do what you want through a speech is persuasion not performance.

———————————

Being trained in a skill more than once gives you training in another skill, it does not give you expertise.

———————————

Common one: invisibility does not make you hidden.

———————————

You can only ready one attack not one attack action.

———————————

Opportunity attacks happen when the enemy leaves your range not leave a square in your range.

[Doug Lampert]

They never should have named it "bonus action" because that's entirely misleading. It should have been "minor action" or something, and there should have been a clear description in the combat chapter of what you normally can do on a turn:

But that would be too much like 4th edition, and we couldn't have that.

[HiveStriker]

When I run AL games I get a lot of players that don't understand crossbow master. It's like they assume that it turns your hand crossbow into a semi-auto with an extended magazine. "But it gets rid of the loading property, so I don't have to load it!" is something I hear a lot, then I have to tell them to re-read the section in the PHB about it and explain that they still need an empty hand to load it.
"But I can dual-weild hand crossbows!"
Ok, but how do you reload them? You get the same number of shots with 2 hand crossbows - 1 action hand crossbow attack, 1 bonus action hand crossbow attack.

Mage hand might enable this. The Arcane Trickster's class feature making mage hand even better definitely should. Load the crossbow(s) with the mage hand.
Also true; it's only if you're trying to dual wield them that this becomes an issue. And, since you cannot have more than one bonus action, dual wielding doesn't stack with Crossbow Master's bonus action attack.

I sadly don't think it's a good idea at all.
Loading is an object interaction.
Mage Hand requires either your bonus action (Arcane Trickster) or Action (everyone else) to manipulate something through the hand.

So I don't see how you could use it: Rogue has only one attack in the first place, only an Arcane Trickster could benefit from it because he didn't pick Crossbow Expert but he did Haste himself.
Every other people would need to use their Action on Mage hand instead of their Attack, thus denying themselves both Extra Attack and bonus action from Crossbow Expert.

HOWEVER...
I could see a case made with Unseen Servant!
It does require a bonus action from you to give a command but...
- "The servant can perform simple tasks that a human servant can do like fetching things"
- "Once you give the command, the servant performs the task to the best of its ability until it completes the task then wait for next command".

So you *could* argue that something like "reload my crossbow as needed until I say stop" would work. I mean, it's kinda lenient on the DM part, I'm not sure I would allow it myself for reload on a Figher's Extra Attack for example (loading a crossbow in a split second requires imo an impressive skill, especially if you are not the one wielding it, so I would personally not qualify it as "a simple task", but I could understand different opinion).

I would certainly allow it to reload once per round though under that formulation, but that makes it fairly limited in use... ^^ Maybe for non Arcane Trickster Rogues? Or ranged Clerics that love their shield but expect using bonus action on other things past first round?

...
...
Let's be honest: just keep a hand free it will always be the best option. XD

I'm pretty sure we do this one wrong at my table. Weapons are swapped around more or less at will. Nobody's swapped between weapons mid attack-routine, though, so we might be good? The free object interaction rules are a pain. I'm pretty sure the ranger has switched from bow to both short swords between rounds without any special extra action spent drawing the second one, though.


Replied to this part here. I felt this was moving into its own topic and getting off topic from misunderstood rules.


I assume here you're saying that the foliage, on a grid of 5 ft. squares, covers 4 such squares?

I don't recall if you're supposed to get a free object interaction off-turn, but you get only one on your turn at least.

And drawing OR sheathing take individual object interaction EACH.

So technically you shouldn't be able to put back your lonbow on your back while drawing a shortsword without using your action (or bonus action if Thief) on top of the free one, unless a) you picked Dual Wielder and b) your DM is not psychorigid enough to consider you can either draw two or "sheathe" two at the same time, but not draw one and sheathe one (this would be a really stupid interpretation. I did see it occasionally though).

But yeah, overall, those drawing/sheathing rules are essentially an artificial nerf to throwing weapons. I still follow the rule (notably to keep Dual Wielder and a few other features relevant without tweaks) but I would completely understand DMs ditching it. I simply don't see any use-case where this would threaten or break the balance...

By the same token, DMs should be encouraged to just allow things to succeed if there's no compelling reason why they shouldn't. There's a judgment call here, of course, but even if there's a reasonable chance of failure, if the failure is just a frustration, don't bother with it.

They should also consider, sometimes, just allowing those proficient in appropriate things to succeed for being proficient.

I hope I don't open a tangent topic here, but I really wanted to say, that's probably the hardest thing I find to do when I DM... "Should that obstacle be complex enough to warrant a check? Is it logical/justified from the context I gave? Is there any interesting/fun/important consequence that a fail could bear?"

When you're following print adventure, it's manageable enough: just tweak sometimes because party pushed in a slightly different way than the authors expected. In a free-form evolving world when you often have to think on the fly? Am I the only one feeling that it's much much harder in those circumstances? ^^

[MaxWilson]

But that would be too much like 4th edition, and we couldn't have that.

Maybe so. I hated fourth edition too much to play it extensively, so I remember much about its terms. The main thing is to avoid being misleading, and this whole notion of "you don't have a bonus action unless something gives you something, but you can only receive one per turn" thing is clearly misleading because it misleads people. "Secondary action" wouldn't have that problem because you naturally think "secondary = singular", but "minor action" might be just as good especially if you phrase it as "you can do XYZ as your minor action" instead of "as a minor action".

[HiveStriker]

They never should have named it "bonus action" because that's entirely misleading. It should have been "minor action" or something, and there should have been a clear description in the combat chapter of what you normally can do on a turn:

1.) One action
2.) One minor action
3.) One object manipulation
4.) Movement up to your current speed
5.) Anything additional which your class features grant you.

Then if it were me writing the rules I would also have written:

In addition, no matter whose turn it is, you may:

1.) Cease concentrating on a spell
2.) Communicate briefly: shouting a warning, identifying a hidden enemy, offering surrender, etc.

but it's probably controversial as whether #2 was actually intended by WotC to be legal.

-Max

You mean, like in 4E?


I know many people dislike 4E but I think some hate is unjustified.
I do largely prefer 5E for the balance it striked between simplicity and richness in many aspects (not all admitedly, but off-topic) but the vocabulary 4e used to describe game mechanics was imo much better.

And although 5e system is nice and spell slots would have been otherwise complex to make fit into, I do miss that simple and elegant balance of at-will / encounter / daily powers of 4e...

Finding someone hidden is not free.

There is no: perception check to find the hidden enemy.

It is: i spend my action to make a check to find the hidden enemy.

Well... There is actually. Seems you forgot about passive checks, among which Perception is probably the most used one. :)
It's just less efficient that dedicating your focus on it with your action. ^^

[greenstone]

If I can be picky (I figure this is a rules thread, so being picky is needed).

You can only ready one attack not one attack action.

You can ready any action, which includes the Attack Action.

What I think many people miss is that features like Extra Attack almost always apply only on your turn, so you don't get to take advantage of them on someone elses turn when your readied action happens.

[Millstone85]

By the book performance does almost nothing.
Playing an instrument is tool use and dex not performance.

By the PHB, "Your Charisma (Performance) check determines how well you can delight an audience with music, dance, acting, storytelling, or some other form of entertainment". It could very well apply to your performance with a musical instrument.

And yes, this creates a problem for tool proficiencies, which they acknowledged in a later book. Tools and Skills Together, page 78 of XGtE, outright asks "Thus, why would a character who has the opportunity to acquire one or the other want to gain a tool proficiency instead of proficiency in a skill?". They then offer the optional rule that if a skill and a tool both apply to an ability check, and you have proficiency with both, the check is done with advantage.

[Man_Over_Game]

If I can be picky (I figure this is a rules thread, so being picky is needed).


You can ready any action, which includes the Attack Action.

What I think many people miss is that features like Extra Attack almost always apply only on your turn, so you don't get to take advantage of them on someone elses turn when your readied action happens.

If you want to get really weird about it:

Your Mount and You have different turns, but the same initiative value.

You can Ready an Action on your turn to attack, and get all of your attacks as normal. However, if you Ready your Action to attack and the trigger occurs while your Mount is moving, it only gets the single attack, since you two don't share the same turn.

If the Mount is Readying its movement, it doesn't have the Disengage Action, and having a way to use the Disengage effect from the player has no impact on the mount's movement. As a result, there's no real way of making a 'hit-and-run' attack, unless the player Readies his action to do a single attack on a creature that the Mount passes by on the Mount's turn, taking place immediately after the character's turn with the same initiative value, but on separate turns.

Not really sure why I decided it was necessary to mention. To add more chaos, I guess?

[sithlordnergal]

But at least they cannot act. So if they do not have anything that grants a reaction, they lose the whole round. Since the initiative roll should be triggered in this case by the party doing something, you could probably argue that the surprised guys did not have an action planned, which means they are essentially taking the "Ready" action of "I do nothing until After something happens," which would mean no reactions until AFTER the first PC finishes up. Ugh.

Ehh, I wouldn't buy that argument...I doubt players would buy that argument either if it were used on them. That said, the biggest issue isn't that they spend their turn doing nothing. Its that once you lose the surprise condition, any ability that needs Surprise, or for you to go before a target, to work no longer works. The most well known ability is the Assassin Rogue's Assassinate ability. You you happen to go last in combat for some reason, which I have seen happen to rogues due to poor rolls on the player's part, they lose that entire ability.