Quote: I am suggesting the GM use their brains to translate what the player is stating as their ready, to what they actually want their ready to be. No, I WANT IT to be "If somebody enters the room, cast dimensional lock in front of me" That's why I said that. The trigger is PRECISELY what I say it is as a player. The only misstating going on is yours as a GM if you change it to be something it is not.
Quote: so that it'll work within the strange time-travel ready rules It will already work just fine, because it's not breaking any rules. If you think that reacting to something before it happens is breaking a rule, please quote the rule that it breaks.
Your "translating" what I say changes it from a tactically clever, perfectly legal action to something that doesn't do what I want at all. That's like "translating" me wanting to hit a skeleton with a hammer to what I ACTUALLY meant must have been with my dagger, and then telling me it fails because he has DR/bludgeon...
Quote: So in short, yes, at my table a player can ready to shoot a guy when they become visible without having a 50% miss chance. And I don't consider this a house rule. You consider incorrectly, then... You're simply straight up breaking a clear, written rule, that the readied action happens before. You're making it not happen before. You're not following RAW, simple as that.
Crimeo wrote: Future seeing and time traveling aren't actually necessarily "problems" rules-wise. What makes you rule out it just actually happening that way?
In fact, I'd actually lean toward #2 or 3, under the opinion it is generally preferable to conclude RAW in a way that the rules function as written AND none of them are broken, and those allow for that.
You mistake me. It is the fact that the rules contradict each other that lends me to believe it doesn't happen according to one sentence ("The action occurs just before the action that triggers it") over the rest of the entry (that the action is interrupted and then continued).
Event A cannot happen before Event B and simultaneously "interrupt" Event B's duration.
Crimeo wrote: Quote: I am suggesting the GM use their brains to translate what the player is stating as their ready, to what they actually want their ready to be. No, I WANT IT to be "If somebody enters the room, cast dimensional lock in front of me" That's why I said that. The trigger is PRECISELY what I say it is as a player. The only misstating going on is yours as a GM if you change it to be something it is not.
Quote: so that it'll work within the strange time-travel ready rules It will already work just fine, because it's not breaking any rules. If you think that reacting to something before it happens is breaking a rule, please quote the rule that it breaks.
Your "translating" what I say changes it from a tactically clever, perfectly legal action to something that doesn't do what I want at all. That's like "translating" me wanting to hit a skeleton with a hammer to what I ACTUALLY meant must have been with my dagger, and then telling me it fails because he has DR/bludgeon...
Quote: So in short, yes, at my table a player can ready to shoot a guy when they become visible without having a 50% miss chance. And I don't consider this a house rule. You consider incorrectly, then... You're simply straight up breaking a clear, written rule, that the readied action happens before. You're making it not happen before. You're not following RAW, simple as that. If there is actually a legitimate reason and function for using the "happens before" part of the ready, I'm not going to stop it from working as cleverly planned.
However, 95% of the time when a player uses a ready in this sort of situation they don't actually want to do their their thing before the triggering event happens, but just as the triggering event happens. If a GM causes a player's action to fail just because they didn't phrase their ready -perfectly-, that's frankly a bit of a dick move on the GM's part.
Quote: Event A cannot happen before Event B and simultaneously "interrupt" Event B's duration. True. So yeah only just contradictory then, fair enough.
Quote: If there is actually a legitimate reason and function for using the "happens before" part of the ready, I'm not going to stop it from working as cleverly planned. However, 95% of the time... Sure, that may be good advice, but is not really rules discussion.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
