I'm having issues with these, and need clarification and perhaps afterwards, some advice.
How specific do I need to be when making my action with the conditions? Can I choose to wait for that condition to happen later, or do I have to trigger on the first instance? Are there tricks to making statements that allow more than usual anyone could suggest?
Also, holding your initiative still exists, right? When can you choose to enter the fight again? Can I interrupt another turn this way?
1) how much specific you need to be is basically up to you. A too much specific statement could never trigger, while a too much generic one could be refused from your dm.
2) You can choose to not trigger the readied action, but usually if you make a middle way specific statement, it rarely trigger more than once.
3) I don't think I understand what you asking. Could you explain?
4) holding initiative is still here. You can choose to act whenever you want, but you can't interrupt other's action if you hold.
|
Also, holding your initiative still exists, right? When can you choose to enter the fight again? Can I interrupt another turn this way?
Delay
By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. When your new, lower initiative count comes up later in the same round, you can act normally. You can specify this new initiative result or just wait until some time later in the round and act then, thus fixing your new initiative count at that point.
You never get back the time you spend waiting to see what's going to happen. You also can't interrupt anyone else's action (as you can with a readied action).
To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it.
1. Completely GM fiat. I've never felt the need to "rein in" an overly-specific or crazy-branching readied action.
Regarding specific conditions, so long as it seems like the kind of thing a person could actually process in a few seconds, it's good enough for me. "I prepare to hit the first enemy that attempts a threatening action" would be fine by me so long as we use the same rules for "threatening action" we'd use for, say, adjudicating the fascinated condition. Such a condition would be useful for a "Don't move!" or "Cover me while I move in and disarm the surrendering enemies" tactic. At another table, this might not fly; respect the GM's judgment.
Regarding general conditions, so long as it doesn't amount to a delay action without the drawback, I'm fine with that too. Example: "I prepare to attack the orc as soon as an ally flanks it" is acceptable. "I prepare to attack when I feel it would be advantageous" is not; the player should use a delay action instead.
---
Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition.
2. You do not have to take the action in response to the first condition that triggers it, nor does forgoing the action prevent you from responding if the condition occurs again. If you prepare to shoot the first person that comes around the corner, you can hold your fire if Little Timmy Pincushion rounds the bend yelling "Don't shoot!", then take your shot when the orc chasing him becomes visible.
---
3. It isn't really about tricks so much as ensuring that you always get the first hit. Vital Strike works well as a readied action. Readying an action until the enemy crosses into your first ranged increment is very useful, especially if you use firearms or can otherwise target touch AC. ("Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes!") Judicious use of readied actions is one of those things that separates a tactician from a grunt. Practice, practice, practice.
---
4. Use the delay action, as posted already.
|
|
Remember that your readied action can include a 5' step, if you hadn't already moved during the turn you readied, as part of it.
Readying grants you a standard action but allows you to interrupt another persons action. Also... Readying likewise permanently alters your initiative to just after the person your readied action interrupted.
Almost right, but when triggered, a readied action moves you in the initiative order to just before the creature that triggered your readied action, not after.
Also remember that you can choose to ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action OR a free action, not all of them. (You do get the 5' step as Kinevon described)
You can do a free action as part of your standard action. If you haven't already used it, you can do a swift action.
Also remember that you can choose to ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action OR a free action, not all of them. (You do get the 5' step as Kinevon described)You can do a free action as part of your standard action. If you haven't already used it, you can do a swift action.
If you want to use a swift action when it's not your turn you have to ready that action. The only thing you can do in addition to a readied action is take a 5 foot step (if you didn't move or 5 foot step the turn you readied).
Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action.
True. You can ready any of those.
I was ready to argue that if you chose to ready a standard action, you could also do free and swift actions based on the below.
Swift Actions: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting, activating a feat, or the activation of magic items.
You can take a swift action if you would normally be allowed a free action.
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.
You can take a free action while taking another action.
However, the ready rules state "The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun."
So even though you're taking an action, it's not your turn, and that might disallow swift/free actions other than speaking. Interesting.
Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action.True. You can ready any of those.
I was ready to argue that if you chose to ready a standard action, you could also do free and swift actions based on the below.
Swift Actions: A swift action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort than a free action. You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action. You can, however, perform only one single swift action per turn, regardless of what other actions you take. You can take a swift action anytime you would normally be allowed to take a free action. Swift actions usually involve spellcasting, activating a feat, or the activation of magic items.You can take a swift action if you would normally be allowed a free action.
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free, as decided by the GM.You can take a free action while taking another action.
However, the ready rules state "The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun."
So even though you're taking an action, it's not your turn, and that might disallow swift/free actions other than speaking. Interesting.
Hmmm... it says you can take the free action while you are taking the other action. So as long as the free action doesn't affect the action you are taking I would allow it. Like you can't drop the weapon you are making an attack with. Or if you decide to drop prone, you can't decide to do it after the attack (I might rule that since you are dropping prone while attacking, you only take -2 to hit instead of the full -4 but that's not an actual rule). What do you think?
|
I think that "Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action." mean that you can ready that kind of action (and that sometime can be important, as an example if the only memorized dispel magic you have is quickened one and you want to cast it when the enemy is crossing the magical bridge), nut it don't limit you to only 1 action, stopping you from taking your normal free/swift actions together with a standard action.
As an example, readying an action to shoot the first person that come around the corner don't stop you from notching another arrow in your bow after firing it.
It says to specify the action and the conditions you'll take it. Can just saying "a standard action" be specific enough for the first part, and can "when they're within my threatened range" be specific enough for the second?
So I can opt out of my readied action, and am not obligated to take it when the conditions are met, correct?
I want to use this mechanic to do cool things like interrupting an attack on me before it resolves, by attacking them first, and if needed, taking a 5ft step away so their attack is useless.
That doesn't work, Rapanuii, unless they had just enough movement to reach you. Your attack goes off before they attack, so they haven't attacked yet. They just move a bit more and get you. You got your attack in first, though.
|
|
It says to specify the action and the conditions you'll take it. Can just saying "a standard action" be specific enough for the first part, and can "when they're within my threatened range" be specific enough for the second?
So I can opt out of my readied action, and am not obligated to take it when the conditions are met, correct?
I want to use this mechanic to do cool things like interrupting an attack on me before it resolves, by attacking them first, and if needed, taking a 5ft step away so their attack is useless.
"A standard action" isn't specific enough. It fall the "it should not duplicate the delay action" test.
It depend on the GM, but "I will attack him in melee" with the option to choose what weapon you want to use between those you already are holding or those that you can fast draw, or "I will attack him whit my bow" with the option to choose the arrow you want to use or "I will cast spell X" with the option to choose the spell location and targets are all valid readied actions for me.
|
|
That doesn't work, Rapanuii, unless they had just enough movement to reach you. Your attack goes off before they attack, so they haven't attacked yet. They just move a bit more and get you. You got your attack in first, though.
There are several long threads about that tactic. It can work in the right conditions, especially against charging opponents. Once. At most twice, then the opponent will adapt his actions to the way in which his enemy fight.
I figure their attack triggers my interruption, and then I preform my readied action, followed by a 5ft step I'm entitled to if I didn't spend it or used movement before. The creature would then resolve it's turn by finishing their attack and missing, which would go into their turn ending, and the cycle can be repeated.
Check with your GM. In some games, it won't fly.
I figure their attack triggers my interruption, and then I preform my readied action, followed by a 5ft step I'm entitled to if I didn't spend it or used movement before. The creature would then resolve it's turn by finishing their attack and missing, which would go into their turn ending, and the cycle can be repeated.
After the first time, they wise up, move up, and ready an action to attack you if you do anything nontrivial (like moving or attacking).
Your move.
I figure their attack triggers my interruption, and then I preform my readied action, followed by a 5ft step I'm entitled to if I didn't spend it or used movement before. The creature would then resolve it's turn by finishing their attack and missing, which would go into their turn ending, and the cycle can be repeated.After the first time, they wise up, move up, and ready an action to attack you if you do anything nontrivial (like moving or attacking).
Your move.
Yes, that is completely acceptable, and when I attack them, they can interrupt my attack and swing before me. All depends on how the GM determines how the characters would normally behave, and react to those tactics done by the players.
@Slim, I don't see why it wouldn't fly, because the enemy has already started that particular action, so moving up further isn't an option. The attack is set for the enemy when they make their attack. If it was a matter of hitting them while they are in their move action, then they obviously can continue to move if they have it and chose their actions thereafter.
Rapanuii, the argument goes like this. If your trigger was being attacked, and you step away so that no attack is possible, then your action wasn't triggered (because you weren't attacked). Yes, it's circular logic. I'm not saying it's correct, I'm saying you'll encounter it.
Another interpretation that there is no "between the end of the move and the start of the attack". (this is assuming a move action followed by a standard action).
These are all better covered in existing threads, such as this one. Ask your GM how he's going to run it so there are no surprises in either direction.
Yeah, it's a natural result of a causality-breaking mechanic. Pay it little mind and have fun.
Rap, the 5ft step away tactic is legit by RAW.
Another fun one is the 5ft step in/attack vs a dude with a reach weapon.
Some GMs get fussy about it and house-rule it, and a lot of folks get really caught up in the whole time traveling readied action myth. But by RAW, their movement is already over when they declare their attack, and they've already declared (locked in) their attack... your action triggers… then their attack fails to hit, as you're not in the square anymore.
Do I need to specifically state to interrupt an attack, or is there something less specific that can include that? Can I opt out of my readied action upon met conditions, or am I absolutely forced to take it?
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I solve the dilemma by just not allowing actions to be readied to interrupt an attack in the middle of the attack. You can go before or after it but "moving to avoid an attack" is part of your AC. Readying to interrupt an attack is to me like saying "I want to go after the gunslinger pulled the trigger but before the bullet hits."
In my games readied actions have to have clearly observable triggers and you have to specify pretty much exactly what you want to do. If you want to execute you action with split-second timing you need to have plotted out in your head your precise actions ahead of time.
"I ready an action to attack him if he charges me and 5 foot step to the left" is fine.
Charges is too specific, and a gm might say "he only used a move"
Ranged attacks won't work with this tactic, unless you go out of sight, just like if you moved to another threatened square to a melee opponent.
Your taking a chance on your turn to maybe get a payoff, which could be a complete waste. Not too cheap in my opinion.
Do I need to specifically state to interrupt an attack, or is there something less specific that can include that? Can I opt out of my readied action upon met conditions, or am I absolutely forced to take it?
"I ready an action to attack anyone who attacks me with a melee attack."
the most common trigger I've seen is "moves into or adjacent to my threatened area" or the specific "I ready an attack to disrupt spell-casting". The latter is usually used with ranged weapons, but sometimes with spells.
I might, as a HOUSE RULE, allow a feint to trigger a readied "if attacked" action, if the feint was successful. After all, what is a successful feint but a false attack that is believed ? Totally not RAW, however.
"I ready an attack to interrupt an enemies actions" perhaps?
Can I opt out to not take my action? My gm has made me take my action on any legal target, and it was awful.
That first one might be too loose. It might work if you specify exactly what enemy or group of enemies. "If any of this lot over here (indicates group of probable spellcasts) does anything other than flee, I shoot at them." probably works. But "if any enemy does anything" is too general and would probably get changed to "delay".
Depends on how you phrased the action you want to opt out of. If you said "I ready my bow to attack the first thing that comes through that door." you might indeed be required to do so. Instead say "I ready my bow to attack any enemy that comes through that door."
Again, work this out with your GM.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
See, I wouldn't let you ready an action based on multiple targets either. In my mind you are watching one foe like a hawk for your specific trigger, in order to get the drop on them. I'd probably let you completely abort your action if needed, but not "pick and choose" multiple instances. It's arguable if you should be able to abort at all; movies, at least, are full of scenes where someone with a "readied" gun accidentally shoots it because they were startled.
You're taking one readied action, and it's not necessarily against multiple targets, but rather against who meets those conditions. This action isn't hawking at one particular creature, unless stated as such.
"I ready an attack to interrupt an enemies actions" perhaps?
Can I opt out to not take my action? My gm has made me take my action on any legal target, and it was awful.
By RAW, no you are not required to take it.
...you may take the readied action in response to that condition.
May, not must.
Your GM may rule that there are extenuating circumstances - eg shoot the first thing to come through the door, he rolls a secret perception check to determine if you recognize it as a friend or foe because its dark, or your ally is disguised, or whatever.
There's legitimate reason to have a readied action against multiple targets. Say the party has just finished taking out a party of baddie minions, and the martial is covering the minions with his bow while the cleric heals up the rogue and the wizard examines loot. Martial's Readied Action: "I shoot the first minion that takes an action to promote escape." Any of the minions try to run, or to attack, he shoots. He still has to make the attack roll, so it's easy to say that if he missed it's because his attention was on a different person at the time. Also, circumstance bonuses and soft cover.
I had another question. This came up at a game I was playing in, and I was curious. Another player used the readied-action trigger "opponent performs a standard action." I raised the point that I didn't think that was a legal trigger. Looking back, I'm not sure about it because I'm not seeing anything RAW that specifically dis-includes a metagame trigger like that. My thoughts are thus:
- there is no visual cue for "a standard action" that is necessarily recognizable; any trigger cues are tied to types of actions
- many things that are normally standard actions can also be other action types (quickened spells, full attack actions, etc.), so some visual cues that could be argued don't work
- there are standard actions that, it could easily be argued, wouldn't have recognizable cues (lowering spell resistance, some extraordinary abilities, etc.)
- assuming that "or statements" are frowned upon (a point the other player raised), saying "a standard action" is essentially a giant "or statement" (opponent performs action a, b, d, f, g, or y)
Any thoughts on such a situation? I personally wouldn't allow any trigger that the character (not player) can't describe in words, with a possible restriction on the extent of complex triggers, but I'm curious if anybody knows of anything in the rules about guidelines/restrictions for triggers that might be pertinent.
I had another question. This came up at a game I was playing in, and I was curious. Another player used the readied-action trigger "opponent performs a standard action." I raised the point that I didn't think that was a legal trigger. Looking back, I'm not sure about it because I'm not seeing anything RAW that specifically dis-includes a metagame trigger like that. My thoughts are thus:- there is no visual cue for "a standard action" that is necessarily recognizable; any trigger cues are tied to types of actions
- many things that are normally standard actions can also be other action types (quickened spells, full attack actions, etc.), so some visual cues that could be argued don't work
- there are standard actions that, it could easily be argued, wouldn't have recognizable cues (lowering spell resistance, some extraordinary abilities, etc.)
- assuming that "or statements" are frowned upon (a point the other player raised), saying "a standard action" is essentially a giant "or statement" (opponent performs action a, b, d, f, g, or y)Any thoughts on such a situation? I personally wouldn't allow any trigger that the character (not player) can't describe in words, with a possible restriction on the extent of complex triggers, but I'm curious if anybody knows of anything in the rules about guidelines/restrictions for triggers that might be pertinent.
Hmmm. The rules are not against the metaplay description. You can even ready an action betwen, to say so, the 2nd and the 3rd attac of a full round attack. The problem is that the readied action must be described in some way, and the player is nearly forced to use the game mechanics terms. I always allow the players (not the pc) to ready an action using the game terms, it's really more clear than a readied action with an "in character speaking", even for me as DM. For sure you can say that "opponent performs a standard action" is too much generic or indefinite to trigger, it's your right.
Hmmm. The rules are not against the metaplay description. You can even ready an action betwen, to say so, the 2nd and the 3rd attac of a full round attack. The problem is that the readied action must be described in some way, and the player is nearly forced to use the game mechanics terms. I always allow the players (not the pc) to ready an action using the game terms, it's really more clear than a readied action with an "in character speaking", even for me as DM. For sure you can say that "opponent performs a standard action" is too much generic or indefinite to trigger, it's your right.
I had another question. This came up at a game I was playing in, and I was curious. Another player used the readied-action trigger "opponent performs a standard action." I raised the point that I didn't think that was a legal trigger. Looking back, I'm not sure about it because I'm not seeing anything RAW that specifically dis-includes a metagame trigger like that. My thoughts are thus:- there is no visual cue for "a standard action" that is necessarily recognizable; any trigger cues are tied to types of actions
- many things that are normally standard actions can also be other action types (quickened spells, full attack actions, etc.), so some visual cues that could be argued don't work
- there are standard actions that, it could easily be argued, wouldn't have recognizable cues (lowering spell resistance, some extraordinary abilities, etc.)
- assuming that "or statements" are frowned upon (a point the other player raised), saying "a standard action" is essentially a giant "or statement" (opponent performs action a, b, d, f, g, or y)Any thoughts on such a situation? I personally wouldn't allow any trigger that the character (not player) can't describe in words, with a possible restriction on the extent of complex triggers, but I'm curious if anybody knows of anything in the rules about guidelines/restrictions for triggers that might be pertinent.
I'd disagree that the players are forced to use the game mechanics terms except that using them makes it easier to describe. But there's usually a way for the character to describe it even then. Using your example, "I want to attack and interrupt after the second attack in his set, before the third one." And yes, the ability for the character to describe it is absolutely house-rule and metagame descriptors are not explicitly ruled against that I've seen, but it does seem to be against intent that you can say "a standard action" when that encompasses so many different potential triggers that you may not even be able to perceive.