JamesMaster's page

The PCs were in a cave and had a strong suspicion that enemies were about to jump out from behind a boulder and hit them with arrows. One used the Ready Action to prepare a Strike. Their stated Trigger was initially “if anyone moves to attack us, I will fire an arrow.” I made them be more specific because I felt it was unrealistic that the PC would have complete 360 degree awareness in the cave. Instead, they choose an area the same scope as a Seek Action and I limited the Trigger to that area—“if anyone in that area pops into view” became the Trigger. Now, the player was right, and an enemy did pop out to fire an arrow on their turn (we were already in Encounter Mode). Since the Trigger was satisfied and because the PC had essentially guessed correctly, the Readied Action was set off BEFORE the foe attacked since it had to Stride before it could attack.

We felt the ruling made sense (please let me know if you agree or not,) but it left me with three questions.

1) If the foe was hidden in a way where they didn’t need to move to Strike, then the Trigger would not have gone off, correct?

2) If the player had changed it to “when someone Strikes,” I would have ruled that the foe’s Strike action happens, and THEN the Trigger is set off since the only way the Trigger is satisfied is if the foe tries to make a Strike—meaning I’m rolling to see if it hits. The PC doesn't get to interrupt the Strike, right?

3) Lastly, if the wording was “if anyone goes to Strike me from the designated area,” then their Trigger would go off BEFORE the Strike if the player could see them do so. If the foe was Undetected or even Hidden, then they wouldn’t see the foe getting ready to fire, correct? So the Trigger would not be set off.

In practice, I am not this picky at the table. When players set up Triggers, we usually talk it through together so I’m clear about their intentions and don't get overly hung up on their exact phrasing. Here, I’m just trying to get a clearer understanding of how this works in P2.

Making Sense Motive a simple Perception check erases the line between situational or tactical awareness and knowledge and understanding of human nature—or human psychology. These are two very different skills. Conflating them means the ultra Perceptive, raised by wolves Ranger your player has put together also happens to be equally good at reading people’s intentions? This makes 0 sense to me. Its the only area I’ve run into so far where 5e clearly comes out on top. Insight there is a separate skill from Perception although they are both based on Wisdom. That seems right and logical.

I do like that P2 puts the onus on the Liar to deceive the PCs, rather than waiting for the players to call for a check. This presupposes that the PCs are constantly judging the veracity of the information coming their way which seems believable. And I’ve just gone ahead and let the PCs roll Sense Motive even if they aren't being Lied to even though this isn’t strictly RAW. On p246, it basically says PCs can only call for a roll if they’ve failed to spot a Lie in the first place, and then it is up to the GM.

Am I missing something?

If I have a player whose grappled a target and now wants to move/drag them out of the room, how do I resolve this? Rules say that the PC loses their grip if they move. Note, they specifically don’t want to shove or trip them.