|
Ah yes, another question about readied actions. I searched the archives and couldn't find the specific answer I was looking for so hopefully, the fine Paizo community can help me. When a foe readies an action, say an archer readies to fire an arrow at a PC mage if she casts a spell, can the PC observe the archer as "Readied"? Is his bow drawn, his beady eyes focused intently on the mage?
I have some initial thoughts. The RAW say that readying lets you take a standard action when the particular trigger occurs, casting the spell for instance. I take this to mean that the bow wouldn't be drawn. If the archer gets a FULL standard action, that would include drawing, aiming, and firing the bow. So PC doesn't know archer is gunning for her. Also, allowing the PC to effectively understand that an archer is "waiting and intently observing her actions" would allow for PC to easily change tactics.
What do you all think? Thanks for your advice.
I would probably say that a DC 20 sense motive check or opposed sense motive check to readied person's bluff (or the higher of the two), to determine that someone is readying something. That still wouldn't tell you exactly what they were readying, but that "something was up" with them.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
I believe the readied action would be obvious to anyone who observes the person readying the action - including the potential target of the action.
Your example indicates that an archer waiting for a spell to be started would not be obvious, as he would not have his bow drawn until he takes his action. However, I believe drawing a weapon is a move action (unless the PC has the Quick Draw feat) so the archer would have to have the bow drawn and ready to fire when the trigger of his readied action occurs.
(If I am incorrect on this, please let me know).
My only suggestion comes from page 17 of the DMG, where it suggests the DM can describe a the action "ready a ranged weapon" (surprisingly appropriate here) as "He's got his weapon trained on that area, obviously waiting for something." This is the only precedent I know of which indicates a readied action can be observed.
I favor making readied actions visible to the players. In fact, I favor making all actions visible to the players (unless they are specifically concealed, such as with Sleight of Hand). One can have aesthetic ideas about what something looks like "in game," but others might hold different views, which can lead to quarrels. It's typically a bad idea to use a description in a way that fools players about the mechanics of their current situation and thus may adversely affect their decisions. The players only know what the DM tells them, so the DM should be as transparent as possible in his descriptions.
I've run into a similar issue regarding magic and the description thereof. I aesthetically favor wizards to cast most of their spells without any visible lightshow of arcane power; just the moving of hands and the chanting of words. The spell's effect might not even be visible, such as when someone casts suggestion. However, creating a unified system of which spells are and are not obvious would be tedious and completely subjective, and could rub many a player the wrong way. It would weight certain spells more than others unfairly, based purely on the way they are described. So, I've bitten the bullet and made sure anytime anyone casts a spell, it's pretty obvious what he's doing.
I would tend to do the same with a readied action. I'm not sure if I would describe it so completely as to be distinguishable from, say, a delay in initiative (it would be situational), but it would be apparent to my players that the readier is waiting for something at the very least, and likely I would tell them a little more. Yes, this gives them time to change their tactics, but then again, combat in D&D is already so abstracted and allows players to make so many decisions that would be "unrealistic" in actual, similar combat situations, I don't think this makes much of a difference.
A ready action is a "standard action" that allows you to "take a standard, move, or free action when a set of circumstances are triggered."
So it is an action in and of itself, which would likely be visible. I see it as basically performing all of your action except the "capstone" part of it. Although I realize this gets thematically/mechanically problematic with readied spells, because if you cast 90% of the spell, then your ready condition doesn't go off, you are still somehow capable of "powering down" that spell and not loosing it. Although, I solved that by describing readied spells as being rushed through because of the "extra" time spent deciding what to cast already being taken.
So an archer readying would have his bow drawn, nocked, and aiming at the wizard. A wizard readying a counterspell (in mine at least) belts out the words of his pre-chosen spell rapidly to catch up to the enemy caster.
I would say that readied actions which lead to stealthy actions should likewise be stealthy, within the text of the rules. Consider a rogue: he readies an action to sleight of hand from the mark he bumps into on the street. Since the mark already gets a spot check to notice the theft, I wouldn't give a spot check to notice the intent of theft, as that would be double jeapoardy. But I may give a sense motive check (although I would also give a circumstance bonus on the sleight of hand, its a classic image because its effective). This works well for the scenario of the low level theif who tries to steal from the paladin, who "readies" his own action to intercept the theif's hand when he tries.
Iconic imagery, accomplished mechanically, all is right with the world.
|
|
I would probably say that a DC 20 sense motive check or opposed sense motive check
I think that this is one of those that-makes-sense ideas that, unfortunately, would only bog the combat down and ruin the fun.
I would say that, despite the overwhelming evidence given by Saern's post (and others'), that this should be a DM's decision based on
1) the specific readied action in the specific situation, 2) the class-level or hit-dice of the characters involved (cuz more experienced folks just see more), and 3) what the incoming character is doing, ie., if the PC says, I ready my bow and fire when the horny Hezrou necromancer "comes" screaming 'round the corner, I should rule that demon-dude don't see the arrow till its shaft is in his left nostril. And maybe that's different from when the PC says I ready my dispel magic for when the albino Treant begins casting barkskin.
Hmm, does a charging ettin see more than a charging cyclopse?
-W. E. Ray
That strikes me as common sense. If the necromancer is around a corner, obviously he couldnt see a line of dancing girls, much less a readied action. Because he has no line of sight. Now, if he had a lurking familiar, precongnitive divinations spells, or previous experience with the parties tactics, it might be different, but in this example, common sense and line of sight says the necromancer has no idea whats going on.
Readied actions to cast spells should involve spellcraft checks for others to know what you may be up to, but I call for spellcraft on any spell being cast that doesn't have obvious resuslts. Many a group of mine was saved by a person with high ranks of spellcraft, who realized that the enemy cleric was buffing the crap out of himself, or the wizard was casting protection from fire for no apparent reason (until he dropped fireballs on himself and the party next round). Knowledge is power, and knowing is half the battle. Go Joe!
Obviously quite a few differing views here so I might as well chime in with mine. In and of itself a "readied action" doesn't require any more effort or time than it would to accomplish it "normally". It isn't a rushed action nor is it necessarily obvious what it is going to be. I mean a standard action is probably more often less time consuming than most movement actions (swinging a sword versus moving 30' for example), yes D&D is abstract in such a way so you could be swinging multiple times to only get one chance to "hit," but in essence it comes down to the results of an action being performed. I view the different action types as more of an "effort required" concept and less a set time consumed concept, with exceptions of course (full round type actions that take up all the round - summoning spells, etc). Casting a spell isn't always an "involved" process, there isn't always a long string of words, or some elaborate gesture that needs to be done (and in fact if that were the case they probably couldn't be done in combat realistically or conceptually). And an archer with a bow in hand is just as ready as an archer who is targeting someone. Going from surveying the room briefly to taking a quick snap shot is well within the confines of standard or readied action and would provide no clue as to what was going to happen.
I don't think anyone in our group would like to see Sense motive checks on the NPC's end to tell what a readied or delayed action is going to be. Personally I think that is way too much for a skill check. Look at detect thoughts, you cast the spell, spend rounds concentrating on a subject (who gets a saving throw) and can only do it a couple times per day OR I could just roll a skill check. Granted it is situational but it would come up often enough for me to say "Uh -uh, I don't think so." A sense motive check like that is almost like giving a character situational telepathy but better, not to mention there are already spells that serve that function already (generally + to hit or AC I think they were). The only time Sense motive comes into play in combat is when someone is bluffing to make someone else flat footed, there is no reason to expand upon that in combat, it is kinda like the token "exception" and even then you can use either Sense motive or your BAB (which takes into account if you have more hit dice/levels/experience so that concept is dealt with there in that way, and in that vein BAB helps with CMB's the same way). That would be the difference between "skilled" and "experienced" opponents, it is built into the system.
That all being said I think the best course of action is to give no more or no less than what is being done. If a spell caster is casting a spell, say so (unless there are no indications what so ever, I guess possible with a stilled, silent, eschewed spell with no focus - but even then I would probably slip a ninja note to spell casters/those with spellcraft asking for a roll on the off chance it was high enough), my group will be saying "Making a spellcraft roll" probably before you are done with the sentence. Though we have seen the odd caster with out spellcraft (a cleric I think). If someone isn't acting it doesn't warrant any more explanation then that. It isn't like the the party members aren't going to notice that for the last 2 rounds the opponent has acted before the [insert - player/class - here] and this round he/she didn't do anything (or vice versa). There shouldn't be a marked meta-game difference between a readied and delayed action, or a way to tell between them for that matter. When the PC's see the result, that is when it should "click," at least in my opinion.
So I guess, it is obvious that they didn't do anything when they could have. It isn't obvious what they are going to do though.
Interesting question. Here's how I would handle it:
Anybody actively engaged in melee combat or casting a spell would get the DC 20 Sense motive check (made by me the behind the screen)to notice the readied action. Anybody not engaged in those actions would automatically see the readied action*.
Edit: *This is unless of course the person readying the action concealed, then all PC's would be using a spot check to see the action against a sleight of hand check.
Got home and took a look at the Sense motive skill (vs Bluff, Hunch, Sense Enchantment, Discern Secret Message). "Hunch" would be the closest but it pertains to social situations - talking to an imposter, trustworthiness, things of that sort. Using the skill this way is way beyond its scope until you get to Epic sense motive:
Detect surface thoughts DC 100Detect Surface Thoughts
This lets a character read the surface thoughts of a single target (as the 3rd-round effect of the detect thoughts spell). There is no saving throw to resist this effect, though the target can use Bluff to disguise his or her surface thoughts (see the Bluff skill description), in which case this becomes an opposed check (any result lower than 100 automatically fails). The target must be visible and within 30 feet of the character.
My only suggestion comes from page 17 of the DMG, where it suggests the DM can describe a the action "ready a ranged weapon" (surprisingly appropriate here) as "He's got his weapon trained on that area, obviously waiting for something."
I think this summarises very clearly the way I play it. You can see that the figure in question has their weapon at the ready and is waiting for something, but there's no way you can tell what's going to trigger any further action (unless you can read minds).
I don't think anyone in our group would like to see Sense motive checks on the NPC's end to tell what a readied or delayed action is going to be. Personally I think that is way too much for a skill check. Look at detect thoughts, you cast the spell, spend rounds concentrating on a subject (who gets a saving throw) and can only do it a couple times per day OR I could just roll a skill check. Granted it is situational but it would come up often enough for me to say "Uh -uh, I don't think so." A sense motive check like that is almost like giving a character situational telepathy but better, not to mention there are already spells that serve that function already (generally + to hit...
As Callum points out, knowing that something is up doesn't mean you know what will trigger the event or even the exact nature of the event. An elf with a bow (a weapon all elves are proficient with) out might also be a spellcaster and might cast a spell instead of shooting an arrow when something happens. Sensing someone is waiting for something doesn't equal mind-reading. My cat can often sense this, doesn't make him a telepath.
My cat can often sense this, doesn't make him a telepath.
Are you sure about that? Do not underestimate a feline.
As Callum points out, knowing that something is up doesn't mean you know what will trigger the event or even the exact nature of the event. An elf with a bow (a weapon all elves are proficient with) out might also be a spellcaster and might cast a spell instead of shooting an arrow when something happens. Sensing someone is waiting for something doesn't equal mind-reading. My cat can often sense this, doesn't make him a telepath.
You have kinda made my point. Knowing something is up is very different from knowing NPC3 is readying/delaying their action for X circumstance. All you can tell is that they didn't do something when they could have or when they have in the prior rounds (you wouldn't know anything else until that same elf actually pops off a spell or pulls an arrow to use the bow). That is apparent, knowing if it was a ready, delay or some effect that has left them unable to act normally (in which I would allow a sense motive to check for an enchantment effect) is not.
You see someone there, they didn't attack you, you have no idea if they are readying or delaying. Knowing what they are doing/if something is going to trigger their action is essentially mind reading no matter how you look at it. Also knowing that information changes the game, a PC who knows an NPC is delaying knows they can get their action off, if the NPC is readying the action the PC knows what that means and will probably change their tactics accordingly. Using a Sense motive roll in this way is basically making up a rule to use as a meta game tool so you can get information your character shouldn't know.
Feel free to disagree, but the skill is pretty clear in spelling out what it does, this isn't it short of going into epic usages.
I agree with Skylancer, I pretty much describe actions in combat as they are seen by a viewer. The drow casts a spell or the armored knight holds his sword waiting for something.... I will come out and say a spell was cast, and if it doesn't do damage they usually need a spellcraft to figure it out, or if they ready an action I say so but they have no clue what it is unless it's obviious. If the knight was ready to bull rush the first person to get to the top of the stairs and the pcs could see him they would easily be able to figure out what he was doing.
... if they ready an action I say so but they have no clue what it is unless it's obviious.
But then the question becomes "What is an obvious readied action?" Certainly, saying that the wizard is waiting for the fighter to approach within 10 feet before casting a readied hold person is too much information, but to simply say that someone is waiting for something, or that they just don't act, or not saying anything at all and leaving the players to realize the oddity (or not), seems far to small an announcement to me. I would tend to think that an archer readying an attack against a wizard's spell would have an arrow knocked and be paying a decent amount of attention to the mage, all of which would be obvious to the players and their PCs. I would also think it a fighter is readying an attack against the first person to come in range of his axe would have a telling stance and hold the weapon in a telling way as he surveyed the field, which is also obvious to the players.
I might even go so far as to distinguish between a readied action and a delayed action, though I'd not use the actual mechanical terms. It's situational, but I would tend to see a character with a readied action as particularly and evidently focused, while a delaying character is just kind of playing it loose, being non-committal with any action for a few seconds as he waits for something, anything, to change in his favor. Then again, a delay could be descriptively the same as a readied action, such as a fighter delaying his turn so he can charge the enemy after the wizard has cast fireball and so not screw up the team's tactics.
In the end, there's no one way to describe something all the time, particularly something as relatively vague as readied actions and delayed turns. I think every DM has to figure out what the right level of description is to give their players so that said players have an adequate picture of what is going on, without ruining whatever the DM's and the group's expectations of suspense are. I tend to come down on heavily on the side of transmitting what an enemy is doing, as I see D&D combat as being so abstracted already, with so much information already being transmitted to and acted upon by the players that their characters would never know, that informing them of an enemy's readied or delayed actions is usually not going to be a big deal. I still think there is suspense in the combat, especially if the PCs all had an action in mind they wanted to perform, and now have to weight whether to change that action to account for the readied action, or to proceed as planned.
Knowing something is up is very different from knowing NPC3 is readying/delaying their action for X circumstance.
Correct. But knowing that someone is standing their expectantly is NOT very different from knowing something is up.
You see someone there, they didn't attack you, you have no idea if they are readying or delaying.
They haven't attacked you yet, let's be clear that characters do not percieve initiative order, the players do certainly but characters do not. I would agree that without some kind of check, you couldn't tell the difference between a rogue that readied an attack as soon as his ally got in position and a rogue that delayed until after their ally so that they could do a full attack. These two actions would seem pretty similar without some way to "sense" the difference. To note though, delaying means you don't get your turn until later. Your character isn't doing anything because they haven't got a turn yet. So they can't be anticipating anything at that point.
Knowing what they are doing/if something is going to trigger their action is essentially mind reading no matter how you look at it.
How do you know WHAT they are going to do? Where is that information coming in? Knowing they are anticipating something doesn't tell you anything about (a)what they are anticipating and (b)what they intend to do when that something occurs. To get those bits of information IS mind reading.
Also knowing that information changes the game, a PC who knows an NPC is delaying knows they can get their action off, if the NPC is readying the action the PC knows what that means and will probably change their tactics accordingly.
Yes, if you know (a)what they are anticipating and (b)what they intend to do when that something occurs, then that can certainly change a player's/character's tactics (it is something that DMs have to fight against all the time since they tend to know alot more than the NPCs they are running). But if all you know is that they are anticipating something, but you don't know what that is or what they will do, then changing your tactics can often shoot yourself in the foot. They may not be readying anything about you.
Using a Sense motive roll in this way is basically making up a rule to use as a meta game tool so you can get information your character shouldn't know.
Yes, using it in the way you described (getting to know exactly what the trigger action is and what the character intends to do) is doing exactly what you said. Using it in the way I have described, that you just get a feeling that the character is anticipating something, which you don't know exactly it is or what they intend to do when it occurs, is not how you describe it.
Feel free to disagree, but the skill is pretty clear in spelling out what it does, this isn't it short of going into epic usages.
Correct, the way you are describing it is indeed an epic usage.
... if they ready an action I say so but they have no clue what it is unless it's obviious.But then the question becomes "What is an obvious readied action?"
No the question is more like "When does a readied action become obvious?" And given the rules and the current design of the combat system, it doesn't become apparent until the action is triggered. If combat is raging on and someone has not acted on their initiative (which you would only know if there was a prior round to draw from) you wouldn't know what is happening (delayed, readied, something else) until the event triggers it (possible in the case of a readied action) or until the npc decides to do something (in the case of a delayed action). Even then your players or characters couldn't ever truly know what it was because they could be so close as to be indistinguishable without knowing exactly what was happening or an abnormal outcome (hitting a spellcaster during the casting of a spell). Delaying until an opponent is flanked and readying an action for when an opponent is flanked are virtually identical except for the mechanics of it. It would be impossible for a PC to know the difference in game unless they were mind reading.
Certainly, saying that the wizard is waiting for the fighter to approach within 10 feet before casting a readied hold person is too much information, but to simply say that someone is waiting for something, or that they just don't act, or not saying anything at all and leaving the players to realize the oddity (or not), seems far to small an announcement to me. I would tend to think that an archer readying an attack against a wizard's spell would have an arrow knocked and be paying a decent amount of attention to the mage, all of which would be obvious to the players and their PCs. I would also think it a fighter is readying an attack against the first person to come in range of his axe would have a telling stance and hold the weapon in a telling way as he surveyed the field, which is also obvious to the players.
Ok, I'm all for giving descriptive text for actions in game, but please realize that the rules have been "generalized" in such a way that not everything thing needs a "big" announcement. That an enemy that the party has been in combat with has not taken an action when it normally has been should cause a few looks at the table, but they shouldn't have an inkling of what is going to happen until it does. The way combat works now, combatants are considered to be fully aware of all "visible" opponents and is considered to be actively processing everything it is capable of sensing. At any one point in time the combatant could be considering any possible opponent as their next target, readied/delayed action or not. Readying/delaying an action does not cause you to focus on one target/circumstance to the exclusion of all others in such a way as to incur a penalty, nor is there some "tell tale sign" that allows someone else to foresee what it is that you are going to be doing (IE "If I cast a spell will I get attacked because of the readied action?"). What experienced combatant would give that information away? An archer could be staring at the fighter approaching 10' away and rip off a shot at the wizard 60' away as soon as he starts casting a spell. Until that point the archer was doing normal combat stuff of dodging blows, moving around in their area (5' square), threatening opponents (lets say he has a gauntlet or one of those fancy bows) just like any other point in time in any other round. The only obvious thing was he didn't act when he normally was acting in prior rounds. That is the only thing the observers could know for sure. The only thing that would change that would be if the opponent was actively trying to make it seem (via Bluff) that he was going to attack someone else in order to make another target flat footed, and even then the bluff check wouldn't happen until the readied/delayed action was triggered or taken. Up until that point there would be nothing anyone could sense motive on besides "Yeah, that npc has malicious intent" but I would think that if you were in combat that would be apparent no?
Correct. But knowing that someone is standing their expectantly is NOT very different from knowing something is up.
In combat you aren't "standing there expectantly," you are dodging blows, threatening others and taking attacks of opportunity as usual doing exactly what you would normally be doing. Just because you have readied or delayed an action doesn't change any of that. With the only exception of not taking your action when you could normally have taken it, you are not doing anything out of the ordinary as far as any observer could see. Unless they are seeing inside your head that is.
They haven't attacked you yet, let's be clear that characters do not percieve initiative order, the players do certainly but characters do not. I would agree that without some kind of check, you couldn't tell the difference between a rogue that readied an attack as soon as his ally got in position and a rogue that delayed until after their ally so that they could do a full attack. These two actions would seem pretty similar without some way to "sense" the difference. To note though, delaying means you don't get your turn until later. Your character isn't doing anything because they haven't got a turn yet. So they can't be anticipating anything at that point.
That isn't true, characters would perceive the same order that the players do in a compressed time span (6 sec). There is no check to see the difference between a readied action and delayed action, the only way a character could tell is after the action has happened and seen the results at which point they could use deductive reasoning. Did the action occur during another action or after another action? Having some sort of check for that is like giving a roll to see the future, split seconds before it happens. That is NOT character knowledge or skill, that is meta game information and as such should not be given out. You are in combat you should be anticipating lots of things, generally most being harmful to you, a sense motive to see if that is the case would be fine, yes these opponents have malicious intent - It's a freebie, I'll give it to you. A sense motive roll to see if an action is readied or delayed is not "fair game" for a typical skill check.
How do you know WHAT they are going to do? Where is that information coming in? Knowing they are anticipating something doesn't tell you anything about (a)what they are anticipating and (b)what they intend to do when that something occurs. To get those bits of information IS mind reading.
I'm glad we can agree on something. Again you are in combat, you and the opponent are busy trying to analyze and anticipate each other on some level or another. Knowing if someone is readying an action or delaying an action lets you know something other than "they haven't acted yet," knowing the difference between a readied action and delayed action makes a big difference in tactics. If you are a spell caster and know they opponent is readying an action would you cast that big spell with expensive components you were planning on knowing it could very well be wasted? A defensive spell casting check and taking damage during a casting (probably a lot, as they are readying an action quite possibly for that specific reason) are two different things. Due to that delayed/readied/whatever actions should not detailed any further than what the PC's could know, a simple "The npc didn't do anything, the next person goes..." is where it should be left at. If you need the fluff and the description, just don't give any more information than the normal dancing around the area dodging blows, taking AoO, etc. actions. They aren't singling anyone out until the action occurs, think of it as making a "surprising" movement, attack, whatever action it was and describe it that way.
Yes, if you know (a)what they are anticipating and (b)what they intend to do when that something occurs, then that can certainly change a player's/character's tactics (it is something that DMs have to fight against all the time since they...
Knowing that it is a readied action or delayed action is (b) regardless of what the action trigger is. The person knows that they can either get away with an action as the opponent DELAYED, or they might trigger an action as it was READIED. Just leaving it as the opponent didn't do anything when the characters expected doesn't put undo strain or mislead them in any way. They are still as apt to second guess or shoot themselves in the foot as you put it.
Using it in the way I have described, that you just get a feeling that the character is anticipating something, which you don't know exactly it is or what they intend to do when it occurs, is not how you describe it.
You are in combat, of course the opponent is anticipating something... Unless it is a surprise round and they are totally unaware. Then again they could have noticed you trying to start an ambush and be reading an action for you to attack. If that were the case I would be happy to allow a sense motive check to the effect of "the opponent has noticed you and attempting to act normal (they screwed the bluff check)" but not "they are readying an action." The skill has defined uses, what you are trying to shoe horn in with this suggestion isn't one of them.
For the reasons I have posted above, using it the way you describe is still the epic usage, you are just not getting all the information (so lets say maybe a DC 60 then). You end up with knowledge you couldn't possibly have (knowing a readied vs delayed action) and as you know that it changes what the characters would do. The fact that knowing the difference between the actions is enough to change how someone who continue on is where you cross that point. I mean rationalize it all you want with whatever fluff you envision, you are still using a rule outside its defined role to gain knowledge beyond what the character could know without some other abilities according to the rule set. If you are dead set on using sense motive in this way, the DC is going to be very high because the end result is knowing what the the opponent is going to do before seeing the results (even if they are a few seconds in the future). It isn't like the opponent is bluffing or being misleading (or at least no more misleading that normal in combat), they have a mental plan of action and are acting accordingly. Sense motive has no bearing on something like that, they aren't doing anything "abnormal" to sense or read off the person, their intent hasn't changed and they aren't "hiding" their actions. The timing has just changed.
Correct, the way you are describing it is indeed an epic usage.
And the way you are describing it is still an epic usage with a little lower DC. You just don't gain as much information.