Search Posts
@Brock:
To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition . This paragraph could mean that you indeed get to specify various conditions or triggers (plural) and the readied action gets done in response to each of them as oppossed to when all of them are fulfilled (thus the singular).
You are looking too much into it. OP, second pharagraph:
What the player actually said, and everyone understood so far, is "I'll attack him with my longspear" But don't go that far, just read the title of this thread: "Ready action with many triggers". Peace.
If you ready an action to hit him under a circumstance that includes a 5 foot step, you hit him when he 5 foot steps. Yes you miss out on the opportunity to AoO him when he does something after that, but at least you swung at him [which, if I recall correctly, was part of the intent behind the OP.] That was exactly the player's intent. Disrupt the spellcasting or at least wound the wizard before he got out of range. Ready action was, as you say later, the better tool to get the job done. And the player moved to flank previously that turn, so he couldn't take the 5-ft step to follow the wizard. Thus he placed both conditions to make sure the mage did not get away. That is esentially the point. You can make a long and tedious list of actions to trigger an attack, but the only real benefit of readying in most cases is preventing the wizard from blasting your group's asses into oblivion. There is no point in preparing an action to interrupt some foe pointing a finger at my PC, reaching into a pocket or anything else that is not prevented by damaging him/her in the act. If I want him dead, I would just attack him in my turn or just state "I attack if he does anything hostile"
Sensible to whom? Not to the rules. I thought we all agreed that this particular case was not contemplated in the rules, and therefore open to interpretation...
Wether it was legal or not depends on the rules so again is not clear. But I wholeheartedly agree with you that giving the player the chance to change the trigger would have been the best solution by far ;D
Most sensible answer so far. And before I get beaten to dead for supporting the first person who gives the warrior's player the benefit of the doubt, please allow me to elaborate. I still don't get how some of the posters are willing to accept a vague, purposely obscure, catch-all trigger like: "I attack if he does not surrender" instead of "I attack if he tries to cast a spell or to move beyond my reach" just because there is a POTENTIAL abuse by allowing the unholy OR word ;D The trigger set by the warrior player was not obscure, did not mean to be abusive and it is very clear rules-wise. Do you really prefer a player who gives deliverately vague conditions to bend the rules and make sure he gets his way? Or would you rather, as a DM, be willing to trust his goodwill and allow him to attack if you honestly were planning on the wizard doing anything that would trigger the OP conditions? Which table will you rather be on?
Not if he tales a 5-ft step, which is what the wizard did and does not provoke an AoO. I'm not picky about conditions for readied action, as long as it's not "I'll do it as soon as I feel like it". It's also because I don't want metagaming to get in the way, because me knowing that a specific unit will take a hit for doing one specific action will alter the way I play it. I'm not saying that I'll avoid doing that action, maybe it's the opposite because otherwise it feels like I'm metagaming. My point exactly. This was made worse in this case because it was a PbP game where the warrior's player made the attack roll in advance and rolled and obvious hit, which would probably had taken the wizard out of commission. Not saying our DM metagamed. Just pointing out the potential for abuse is there if you do not allow more than one trigger.
Heh, brutality jokes aside, the point stands that 'readying an action for if a command is disobeyed' totally makes sense. So, actually telling the guy to surrender makes ready action more efficient?? That way you can attack him if he does nearly anything. Sorry, I could not resist the temptation of some good ol' trolling ;D I suppose it comes down to GM interpretation, but seems illogical to me not to allow that course of action. The police example (joking aside) is a perfect example of a ready and interrupt action.
Just to clarify, DM_Blake, I would never feel the need to issue an infinite number of clauses for an action. Even more than one trigger would be illegal if it affects more that 1 target (as per alex1976 example). I just wanted to make a point that it is unreal to think that a warrior trying to kill a wizard (on the long term) or at least prevent his spellcasting (on the short term) will let him walk away just because he just happened to decide he was going to take a step back before casting his spell. Mainly because the warrior is likely to know that one spell is coming up right after that 5 feet step. I think it is reasonable for a DM to allow certain rules flexibility. It is when there is no flexibility that ruleslawyering rears its ugly head...
So if the player reworded his trigger by saying : "I ready an attack if he does anything else than surrender" you would allow it?? It basically covers more actions than what he actually said without using "or" in that sentence. I have just read a phrase that I liked, regarding this ready action issue: "Do not ruleslaw as a DM, and your players will not be forced to ruleslaw you in return..."
What about reading an action with a reach weapon to attack the enemy wizard "if he casts a spell or tries to move out of reach"?
Longer explanation in this thread . You are welcomed to comment ;D
I am involved in the same game than Souhiro. This is a very important issue since the alluded warrior moved previously to flank the wizard and wanted to make sure he either prevented the wizard's spellcasting or at least have the chance to attack before he got out of reach. I believe allowing just one trigger for a readied action leaves the gate open for metagaming: So, this guy readied to attack my BBE wizard if he casts an spell, great, I'll just move him away 5 feet and cast the spell anyway... @alex1976: you can't do anything you want with a ready action, just the action you prepared but (RAW) it is clear you can have more than one trigger. IMHO, of course. More opinions? Any official answer or FAQ would be appreciated.
Be extra careful with that stuff, Heathy. Here in Spain we have the doubtful honor of having the first secondary infection outside Africa(that is to say, contagion happening inside the country, not imported case). The authorities are looking into how that came to happen since in theory WHO protocols were being followed to the letter. Being a professional of healthcare I fully agree with Heathy's angle, everyone can make a mistake, but in this line of work mistakes may unfortunately kill...
Before any of you yell "Who died and put you in charge, anyway??" I thought I´d just mention that I am a firm believer in group tactics and with N'Kai´s speech I am just trying to suggest what I feel is the best way to bring those fortified trolls down. Please feel free to speak your mind and express your own opinion on how to deal with the fight at hand. And even give the elf the middle finger if that is how your character would react to combat orders ;D
Clues off the top of my head, will need to read the thread again to gather more (I had been following this gaming thread for some time before N´Kai popped up): -Found a skin mask at the bottom of the boat in swamp village
Not a bad point to start making "reasonable doubts" about Dobitoc involvement, IMHO ;D
|
