This situation came up in a recent game session. Party is investigating some ruins, when BBEG rogue/fighter, who has drop on party, sneak attacks with a bow shot on the barbarian. The rogue then wins initative and using rapid shot hits the still flatfooted barbarian, inflicting even more sneak attack and taking the barbarian to negatives. Now, knowing that the party cleric would try to channel energy and heal the barbarian on his turn, Rogue/Fighter readied his second attack of rapid shot to shoot the barbarian again if anyone healed him. He really just wanted to threaten party without fear of reprisal.
Rapid shot is a full attack action. Rules for readying an action say that it must be standard, move, swift, or free action. So, what I did is not allowed by the rules, from what I see. How else to handle the situation? Without the readied action, I would have been forced to either kill the barbarian (no room for talking then) or shot the cleric, but would not have taken him out unless I crit. Any rule-wise suggestions?
|
Rogue gets 1 shot during the surprise round. (Sounds like that's what you did. And the barbarian didn't get the benefit of his Uncanny Dodge for whatever reason.)
Rogue can use Rapid Shot on the first full round of combat. (Also sounds like what you did.)
The rogue can take a 5-foot step during that Rapid Shot attack, but that's it. The rest of the party can now take their actions.
When the rogue's action comes up again, the barbarian is no longer flat-footed and the rogue cannot sneak attack unless he's invisible to the barbarian, either invisible or hiding as per Stealth. He can't be hiding though, as he attacked last round. (Well, unless he's got some kind of free Stealth check or something.)
In any case, I don't think you need to hold back on the rogue at all. Without the SA he's not going to be nearly as dangerous. Did you want the party to talk this out? If so, the rogue can issue a request to parlay and then delay, waiting for their response.
a. The Barbarian gets uncanny dodge at lvl 2. If he has this ability then he would not have lost his dex against the rogue/fighter's attacks, and thus would not have been subject to the extra damage from sneak attack. It doesn't matter if the rogue/fighter has surprise, or is invisible or hidden; uncanny dodge allows the barbarian to keep his Dex to AC against these attacks and thus prevents the rogue/fighter from getting sneak attack for being hidden or for surprise or for going first in initiative.
b. It takes a standard action to Ready an action. Only a standard action, move action, or swift action can be readied.
The rogue/fighter couldn't ready his 'second attack' because he already took one attack. Once he took that first attack, he could then either take a move or move-equivalent action or continue with his full attack action. But hes at least used a standard action, and thus has no standard action left that turn to ready another action.
As others have said, it is not legal by the rules. But why let that stop you? Is it really bad to allow players to ready their itterative attacks? I don't think so. It enhances the story and makes sense. Go with it.
|
|
Mmm... allowing players to ready their iterative attacks could easily come up and bite you. For example, the arcane archer takes three ranged attacks, and then readies an action to cast Meteor Swarm as soon as an opponent takes an action.
Three attacks + 9th lvl spell = better than just a straight caster would get.
Plus the idea with iterative attacks is that you have to devote all your efforts to making those attacks. That's why you don't get a partial action, or anything but free actions, a swift action, and maybe a 5 ft step.
House rule as works for you, but this is potentially very exploitable if your players are the type to take advantage of it.
Mmm... allowing players to ready their iterative attacks could easily come up and bite you. For example, the arcane archer takes three ranged attacks, and then readies an action to cast Meteor Swarm as soon as an opponent takes an action.
Three attacks + 9th lvl spell = better than just a straight caster would get.
Plus the idea with iterative attacks is that you have to devote all your efforts to making those attacks. That's why you don't get a partial action, or anything but free actions, a swift action, and maybe a 5 ft step.
House rule as works for you, but this is potentially very exploitable if your players are the type to take advantage of it.
First, you are reading the Arcane Archer's ability wrong. He couldn't get a meteor swarm in his full attack unless he is quickening it, and what epic level game are you playing if he can do that? This would be more like a 18th lvl character getting an extra burning hands later in the turn, and ability he gets anyway.
What is the difference if he delays half a second so that annother foe gets hit or he reacts to his opponent's actions? It would not allow someone to do something they cannot already do in a round, except it would affect the timing of their actions slightly. It would allow players to act more organicly to situations. Things like "I dropped the only visible enemy with my first arrow, so I will ready my second for the first person who comes through the door," or "I just dropped the guy I'm in melee with, and that guy is going to charge me, so I will save my extra attack for when he closes." These things are totally doable IRL, so why should they be banned in the game? They boost up martial characters a very little bit, but is that a bad thing?
Forgot to mention that the party members are all 1st level, hence no uncanny dodge for barbarian. To clairfy: The bad guy is 2nd level and there are 4 1st level player characters (barbarian, rogue, cleric, and wizard). In surprise round, he shot barbarian and did good damage (he considered her the most dangerous with her greataxe). 1st round of combat, he won initiative. He shot barbarian again with sneak attack, taking him to negatives. Now, the rogue does not want to kill the barbarian, or else he would have plugged the unconscious body with another arrow and sneak attack. He wants to parley with the other 3 members to blackmail them to do something for him by threatening them with taking the barbarian's life with his readied action. I know it's not legal. But there is no other way to accomplish this, correct? If he does nothing, party attacks, cleric heals barbarian. If he delays, wizard put him to sleep or color sprays. Rarely will players rp and realize this guy just took their tank out in less than 12 secs and talk it out. No, they'll be out for blood. Just wondering if someone thought of a better way to achieve the result within the rules and without killing one of the PCs.
Talking is a free action. Have him start intimidating them, and make sure they know it. The check takes a minute, but it should be roleplayed out. Don't let them know how powerful he is. He could have spent his second arrow plugging the wizard for 8 damage. Some guy drops your tank quick and is acting confident, but giving you a chance. He should act like he has backup that can jump in to save them, Robin Hood style. Confidence and role playing. There isn't much mecanically that will help.
|
|
Actually, you missed my point entirely. Readying an action is a standard action, and lets you take a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. Pg 183, table 8-2 and pg 203, under the Ready heading.
Ironically, I only used the arcane archer for the bab with 4 attacks, and the ability to cast spells. Insert whatever spell you prefer in there - it doesn't matter as more than an example.
If you're allowing characters to ready an action off of iterative attacks, then you're opening up the door for an arcane archer to take his three iterative attacks and gain an additional standard action.
Meteor swarm is a standard action to cast.
Thus, three attacks out of four, and the *extra* standard action this bestows used to cast a spell.
So, yes, allowing a character to ready an action in the manner you are suggesting does actually provide more actions than normal.
Making a full round attack lets you make all your iterative attacks one after another, including fire arrow one at this guy. He drops? Fire arrow two at that guy. Fire arrow three at that guy. Fire arrow four at that guy.
While allowing characters to *ready* their iterative attacks can make combat interesting and more organic, it also lessens the impact of initiative, opens up some loopholes, and gets you into a series of questions such as:
Can the character substitute another action for the attack?
Can the character enhance the attack using different feats or abilities?
Can the character move in between iterative attacks for better positioning on a ready action.
Can the character switch weapon styles or melee to ranged between attacks.
Personally, I think it's worthwhile to point these things out as potential complications to the implementation of readying iterative attacks for anyone who may not have considered them.
Keep these potential issues, and more I'm sure I haven't considered, in mind when deciding whether or not to allow this type of readying. For me personally, as a dm, the headaches this would cause from the above questions, and from trying to keep track of who had what readied for what contingency, wouldn't be worth the benefit my players would get from it.
As always, your mileage may vary.
For the OP
that blackmail tactic might work... and might not. Once the party *agrees* to perform the deed and heals the barbarian up, there's a chance that they'll just try to track and then kill the rogue.
You could try assigning *family members* to the party, and having the rogue send one of them a note that he's kidnapped so and so and won't release them until the party does x.
It really depends a lot on your players. Mine are usually up for anything that nets them some gold, so they'll do what I want for an appropriately sized bribe.
Blackmail is best done without resorting to blunt force for adventurers. Because as soon as the force is gone, so is the reason to obey the blackmailer.
Another interesting tactic would be for the rogue to *poison* one of the players, giving them *whatever timespan* before the poison kills them. It doesn't matter that much if they're really poisoned as long as they BELIEVE they're poisoned.
Heck, those arrows sitting inside the barbarian could have been *poisoned* :p
Intimidate and bluff are both useful skills here, though you should limit how much you *force* players into taking certain actions. Much better if they feel like they had a choice in the matter.
Maybe a bluff on the poison, followed by an intimidation, and threatening to plant false evidence against them at a crime scene, or even having already done so and threatening not to exonerate them.
Hopefully, you'll find something that works for you. Good luck!
Actually, you missed my point entirely. Readying an action is a standard action, and lets you take a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action. Pg 183, table 8-2 and pg 203, under the Ready heading.
Ironically, I only used the arcane archer for the bab with 4 attacks, and the ability to cast spells. Insert whatever spell you prefer in there - it doesn't matter as more than an example.
If you're allowing characters to ready an action off of iterative attacks, then you're opening up the door for an arcane archer to take his three iterative attacks and gain an additional standard action.
Meteor swarm is a standard action to cast.
Thus, three attacks out of four, and the *extra* standard action this bestows used to cast a spell.
So, yes, allowing a character to ready an action in the manner you are suggesting does actually provide more actions than normal.
Making a full round attack lets you make all your iterative attacks one after another, including fire arrow one at this guy. He drops? Fire arrow two at that guy. Fire arrow three at that guy. Fire arrow four at that guy.
While allowing characters to *ready* their iterative attacks can make combat interesting and more organic, it also lessens the impact of initiative, opens up some loopholes, and gets you into a series of questions such as:
Can the character substitute another action for the attack?
Can the character enhance the attack using different feats or abilities?
Can the character move in between iterative attacks for better positioning on a ready action.
Can the character switch weapon styles or melee to ranged between attacks.
Personally, I think it's worthwhile to point these things out as potential complications to the implementation of readying iterative attacks for anyone who may not have considered them.
Keep these potential issues, and more I'm sure I haven't considered, in mind when deciding whether or not to allow this type of readying. For me personally, as a dm, the headaches this...
You obviously didn't understand me. I said that allowing them to ready their itterative attacks. Not ready any standard action. The 4th attack in your full attack action is nothing like a full spell.
As for switching weapons, if they have quickdraw they can do it mid full attack, so why not? Dropping your weapon is a free action, and with quickdraw, so is drawing and loading your bow. Otherwise, they would need both weapons in hand.
As for movement: No They are taking a full attack. You can't take more than your 5 ft step with a full attack.
What I am proposing is only allowing them to save latter attacks that they could have taken and letting them take those attacks later in the round when it is more advantageos.
The big issue would be how initiative order is changed.
And also, the huge benefit of readying an action to disrupt a spellcaster while still getting a regular round of actions.
|
|
*sigh*
If you're allowing players to use their iterative attacks to ready an action then see readying an action on pg 203.
If you're allowing them to delay attacks, then see delay, also on page 203.
If you're allowing them to only ready an attack, see the lower half of my post.
See? I *did* understand you. Then I pointed out potential problems that I saw with specific takes. Then I gave my opinion on the subject. Then you posted, replying to specific questions.
I wasn't asking specific questions. I was giving examples of questions this could cause and then have to be resolved by the dm. This was done on purpose, to highlight the uncertainty effect that said ruling could cause. Answering examples doesn't actually answer anything, since each example would be something the dm would have to decide on themselves when implementing such an option.
So, to recap, in your first post to me, I wasn't talking about any of the arcane archers abilities. In your second post to me, I didn't misunderstand you. I was providing specific examples of questions. An important distinction.
Finally, I already explained my concerns vs what you are trying to allow, and possible ramifications of those decisions.
To wrap up, I'm just going to copy/paste what I've already posted previously.
Keep these potential issues, and more I'm sure I haven't considered, in mind when deciding whether or not to allow this type of readying. For me personally, as a dm, the headaches this would cause from the above questions, and from trying to keep track of who had what readied for what contingency, wouldn't be worth the benefit my players would get from it.
As always, your mileage may vary.
Everyone is skirting around this issue, so I'll spell it out.
You cannot ready half of a full-round action.
Rapid Shot requires a rull-round action. Both shots are fired as part of that single action.
So what the OP said he did is impossible by the rules as written. Which means the DM is in a position of doing one of two things:
1. Break the rules (which he did) for the sake of the story. This will get awkward later when the players want to break the same rule.
2. Follow the rules. Run the encounter slightly differently. Put that second Rapid-Shot arrow into the the wizard. I bet just one sneak attack from this guy would put the wizard into negatives. Now the cleric needs to save two people. Before he gets a chance, the NPC can deliver his ultimatum (speaking is a free action). He says, "Cast a spell, cleric, and I'll kill them both, but hear me out and they live."
Now it's really up to the party. A good Channel Energy might get both allies on their feet with one action, and the NPC cannot really do anything to prevent it. But they'll be very close to zero HP and that guy with the bow looks really deadly - they'd be foolish to try anything so suicidal.
And hey, if they want to, it's their choice - that's the beauty of inviting players to the game. They get to make up their own minds, and sometimes they do surprising and interesting things.
The big issue would be how initiative order is changed.
And also, the huge benefit of readying an action to disrupt a spellcaster while still getting a regular round of actions.
Initiative order is not changed with readied actions.
As for spellcasters, I know lots of people who would welcome that, and think casters get to cast too frequently with impunity. In fact, I would love to be able to actually ready actions against them effectively, instead of dropping my damage output drastically.
Magicdealer: You have brought up many problems that are not relevant because they don't actually listen to what I am saying. As for it being to complicated to figure out what readied actions the players have, its up to them to interupt. YMMV
DM Blake, perhaps you missed the first part where we all said that you can't ready parts of a full attack. Everyone has said that. The question then came up if it would be beneficial to the game to allow it. Perhaps you should read what people say before insult them for not addressing the issue.
I kind of like the idea of being able to delay part of your full attack. As long as you don't use it to do anything you couldn't have done as part of the full attack, and you take the normal drawback of readying an action (i.e., your initiative is reduced to the point at which you act and you have to declare a trigger) or delaying your action (i.e., your initiative is reduced to the point at which you act and you can't interrupt anyone's actions) I don't see how it would be easily abused.
Definitely opens up more organic combat strategies.
BUT it will inevitably lead to arguments like "I want to take my standard action and then delay my move action" and you will have to decide how you want to deal with that.
|
Everyone is skirting around this issue, so I'll spell it out.
You cannot ready half of a full-round action.
Rapid Shot requires a rull-round action. Both shots are fired as part of that single action.
So what the OP said he did is impossible by the rules as written. Which means the DM is in a position of doing one of two things:
1. Break the rules (which he did) for the sake of the story. This will get awkward later when the players want to break the same rule.
2. Follow the rules. Run the encounter slightly differently. Put that second Rapid-Shot arrow into the the wizard. I bet just one sneak attack from this guy would put the wizard into negatives. Now the cleric needs to save two people. Before he gets a chance, the NPC can deliver his ultimatum (speaking is a free action). He says, "Cast a spell, cleric, and I'll kill them both, but hear me out and they live."
Now it's really up to the party. A good Channel Energy might get both allies on their feet with one action, and the NPC cannot really do anything to prevent it. But they'll be very close to zero HP and that guy with the bow looks really deadly - they'd be foolish to try anything so suicidal.
And hey, if they want to, it's their choice - that's the beauty of inviting players to the game. They get to make up their own minds, and sometimes they do surprising and interesting things.
This is likely the best route. In particular since there is no way the cleric's channeling can keep up with the archer's arrow damage. Figure if the cleric chanels them for the full 6HP he might revive the barb but the archer is likely going to put him down again.
As much of this discussion seems to highlight, you are the GM, it is your job to cheat. (if you don't agree with this, I am sorry for you, because some of the best roleplaying experiences arise from GM cheating). The tough part is not making it look like you are cheating. I would suggest you do exactly what you did, except that when the first attack hit and dropped the barbarian below 0, you have the players roll a bunk perception check, if they roll low, tell them they have a big circumstance bonus. Then when they succeed (because you made them succeed), you tell them that even though the arrow seemed to come from the rogue's direction, it actually sprang out of the darkness behind him, and the rogue is actually very obviously readying his shot as he does a bit of monologue-ing.
|
|
As much of this discussion seems to highlight, you are the GM, it is your job to cheat. (if you don't agree with this, I am sorry for you, because some of the best roleplaying experiences arise from GM cheating). The tough part is not making it look like you are cheating. I would suggest you do exactly what you did, except that when the first attack hit and dropped the barbarian below 0, you have the players roll a bunk perception check, if they roll low, tell them they have a big circumstance bonus. Then when they succeed (because you made them succeed), you tell them that even though the arrow seemed to come from the rogue's direction, it actually sprang out of the darkness behind him, and the rogue is actually very obviously readying his shot as he does a bit of monologue-ing.
I have to disagree that cheating is an essential part of GMing. If you make a habit of cheating then you will get caught and it takes a bit away from the game and makes for bad feeling if something does go bad. If your players know you cheat regularly, when their character dies it's suddenly squarely in the GMs lap and they know it. Dice are impartial and feelings don't get hurt (as much) when players get trounced by a series of bad rolls. On the other end of the spectrum, if there is no risk because the players know you cheat then suddenly there is little sense of accomplishment.
Some of the coolest and most entertaining moments in my game have been due to nutty rolls, crits when you don't expect them or creatures failing critical saves.
I do cheat on occassion but I try and do it seldom and subtly. IMO a GM is better off cheating too little than too much.
|
|
Caveat.
Being a good dm IS about cheating. And about not cheating.
It's about having a feel for when that nutty roll will take a life of its own, or when it'll just end up making the whole table angry.
It's an art, and as art the only way you can go wrong is if once you're done all you get is a mediocre response :D
I've cheated at times to keep that crit from being a crit. Fudging the rolls. To make plausible storyline moments that I want to happen. And there are times when it's much funnier to look over at a player, pick up a stack of *old* papers with a single character sheet on top, and drop them on the floor next to me.
Nothing like a player thinking he just defeated 20 hours of work with a few lucky rolls to get the table jovial :D Even if he did force me to reorganize some storyline stuff, I'd rather he get that bigger feeling of accomplishment.
So it hurts more when I take them down MUAHAHAHAHA!