Since encounter readied actions as both a player and GM (showing me both sides of them) I was wondering how specific do players have to be when naming the trigger for a readied action?
For instance would you allow:
"I ready to attack as soon as that guy does anything?"
Meaning if the target moves/attacks/casts a spell/drinks a potion etc... the player would get their readied action.
Or do they have to be much more specific?
"I ready to attack as soon as that guy casts a spell"
Meaning that if the target does anything other than casting a spell your readied action is wasted.
When I was a GM I was probably a little harsh with requirements, but as a player I can see that it can be a big pain and sometimes a little silly.
Like readying to attack when an opponent attacks but having to stand there if all they do is run (even if they run right by the player).
Thoughts?
Since encounter readied actions as both a player and GM (showing me both sides of them) I was wondering how specific do players have to be when naming the trigger for a readied action?
For instance would you allow:
"I ready to attack as soon as that guy does anything?"
I'd have no problem with that. The real issue for me is "can you watch to see if it happens?"
So, for example, "I ready an action to shoot at the first orc who comes through the door" is fine, 'cause you're focused on the door. "I ready an action to shoot the first orc who sticks his head over that 50' long wall" is more problematic, as you can't watch the entire length of the wall at once.
"I ready to attack as soon as that guy does anything" is fairly simple and I'd allow it. "I ready to attack if he casts a Conjuration spell" is more problematic, as how do you know what spell he's casting? "I ready an attack if he deals me the King of Hearts..."? You get the idea.
So either overspecific or underspecific would be an issue for me, but also something that can be judged case-by-case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I generally allow any trigger that can be said in a single sentence. However, I also require them to actually follow with it. If someone says "I ready to attack as soon as that guy does anything" that wouldn't work well since ANYTHING would trigger it, including the guy making a perception check or, well, breathing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, for example, "I ready an action to shoot at the first orc who comes through the door" is fine, 'cause you're focused on the door. "I ready an action to shoot the first orc who sticks his head over that 50' long wall" is more problematic, as you can't watch the entire length of the wall at once.
Sure you can, unless you're so close to the wall that you can't see all of it in your peripheral vision. I'm sitting approximately 10 feet away from a wall about 15 feet long, and I can see the whole thing. Peripheral vision to either side comes close to tripling that, I would say. You wouldn't see the orc pop up, but you'd see movement peripherally, take a split second to change your field of view and, voila, off goes your readied action.
In response to the OP, I'd say too Orfamay is right in that too specific is more problematic than too general. In the case of "I ready to attack as soon as that guy does anything," it would depend on the situation. If they have a surrendered enemy they're interrogating, that would work for me if the fighter were standing by ready to whack him if he tries anything funny.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes it's a matter of perception. You can't ready an action to do X if target does Y if you have no way of perceiving Y. Example: Unless I've got a "detect thoughts" spell going, I can't prepare an action to sap the target if he thinks of fluffy bunnys. Well, I could prepare the action, but it's never going to go off because I can't tell WHAT the target is thinking.
In the case above, it might be possible to trigger that readied action on a conjuration spell IF you've got spellcraft and make the identification roll. This is where having a perception vs bluff or sleight of hand opposed roll might be useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure you can, unless you're so close to the wall that you can't see all of it in your peripheral vision. I'm sitting approximately 10 feet away from a wall about 15 feet long, and I can see the whole thing. Peripheral vision to either side comes close to tripling that, I would say. You wouldn't see the orc pop up, but you'd see movement peripherally, take a split second to change your field of view and, voila, off goes your readied action.
So, for example, "I ready an action to shoot at the first orc who comes through the door" is fine, 'cause you're focused on the door. "I ready an action to shoot the first orc who sticks his head over that 50' long wall" is more problematic, as you can't watch the entire length of the wall at once.
I've highlighted the section that I have issues with. The whole point of a readied action, to me, is that it's the sort of thing that you don't need to re-orient yourself to.
In response to the OP, I'd say too Orfamay is right in that too specific is more problematic than too general. In the case of "I ready to attack as soon as that guy does anything," it would depend on the situation. If they have a surrendered enemy they're interrogating, that would work for me if the fighter were standing by ready to whack him if he tries anything funny.
In particular, I think the "ANYTHING would trigger it including breathing" is a classically unhelpful "mathematician's answer." Ilja, you know what "anything" means in this context, and it's roughly the same as what Shadowborn describes as "anything funny," which of course does not actually mean "comical" or "unusual." This isn't a wish spell granted by a hostile demon; this is someone describing planned behavior.
If you really insist that the player phrase the readied action as "I ready an action to attack as soon as the person makes any sudden, unexpected, and/or hostile actions including but not limited to attacking, attempting to attack, escaping, attempting to escape, disposing of an object, attempting to dispose of an object, casting a spell, or attempting to cast a spell," then the party might wish for a more cooperative game master.
Of course, regardless of how strictly or ambiguously you word it, you're never obligated to follow through. The rules for readied actions say "you may take the readied action". Probably to avoid situations like peppering an ally or allied NPC if they happen to be the first one through the door :)
Of course, regardless of how strictly or ambiguously you word it, you're never obligated to follow through. The rules for readied actions say "you may take the readied action". Probably to avoid situations like peppering an ally or allied NPC if they happen to be the first one through the door :)
Of course the DM can also be vague.
Player: I ready an action to shoot the first person who comes through the door.
DM: A person comes through the door, are you going to take your readied action and shoot them?
Player: Who is it?
DM: Your free perception check(DC 0) tells you there is a human person present in the doorway. Taking the time to verify the identity would require another perception check which is move action, are your going to forgo your readied action?
We are talking about split second decisions here, so I have no problems with forcing a player to make the decision to take the readied action on limited information. The key is that the player didn't think to look for friends beforehand, and thus the character isn't expecting it. If the player had thought to check friends coming through the door before firing I would have made their free perception check look for that, but I would have upped the DC based on how hard it is to tell friend from foe in that particular situation.
As for my personal style:
1. If the player is too vague, there is a chance they have to decide to take their readied action on vague and confusing information.
2. If the player is too specific, there is a chance the condition is not met.
I warn my players about these things, then I leave it up to them to make their readied actions conditions.
My general guidelines:
1. The readied action needs to be a single sentence in the form of I ready an action to do X when/if Y happens. "I ready an action to cast fireball at the wizard if he tries to cast a spell" is good.
2. The readied action has to be based on information that is readily available to the character. "I ready an arrow to shoot the wizard if he casts a fireball" won't work unless you have spellcraft trained and you make the check.
3. No compound triggers, single action and single trigger only. No I ready an action if A or B happens.
4. Be wary of subjective targets. "I ready an attack when the first enemy comes through the door" is dependent on the player being able to recognize that the person is an enemy, which may or may not be obvious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player: I ready an action to shoot the first person who comes through the door.
DM: A person comes through the door, are you going to take your readied action and shoot them?
Player: Who is it?
DM: Your free perception check(DC 0) tells you there is a human person present in the doorway. Taking the time to verify the identity would require another perception check which is move action, are your going to forgo your readied action?
This in itself seems horribly unrealistic to me unless there are mitigating circumstances, like poor light or the person is wearing a hood or something. Yes, friendly fire occurs, but still...
Taking a track like this in regards to readied actions is sort of akin to the antagonistic genie who offers you 3 wishes, and then screws you over because you aren't minutely specific in your wording. Your table, your rules, but personally I wouldn't stay at a table like that for very long.
Generally speaking, I assume that any player who readies action does so within the parameters of harming the enemy and\or helping his allies, not vice versa - unless the player specifically states otherwise. If the circumstances cause difficulty in determination, then I'll warn the player of that.
As to other rules of thumb I use:
-The trigger has to be something the character can readily perceive and know. As others have pointed out, you can technically ready an action based on a target thinking a certain thought but it will never go off if you can't read minds.
-The action has to be something the character can complete within one standard action; the player can technically take as many words as he wants to describe the action and trigger to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the conventional answer is:
1. You can be pretty general if you want.
2. If you are really general, and something happens which matches your criteria, you take your readied action.So:
Character: "I attack him as soon as he does anything."
Villain: <drops weapon, raises hands> "I surrender!"
Character: <attacks with readied action>Character: "I sneak attack the first person to come through the door."
Cute Orphan: <enters room> "Hello, I am too young to have an alignment, but if I drink my milk I'll be neutral good in a few years!"
Character: <sneak attacks orphan>I think I've had a GM grant a will save to abort an action that would be a bad idea because the criteria were too large. And yes, "save", as in "you roll a 1, you are screwed".
While this could result in some very comical or awkward scenarios, this isn't in accordance with the rules.
This was already pointed out, but I'll emphasize it.
Then, anytime before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition.
May take, not must take.
Just like when someone provokes an AoO, you don't have to take the AoO if you think a better opportunity might come along.
Agreed. I read the "may take" as indicating that once you have readied an action, you have sufficient time (without extenuating circumstances) to ensure that what you meant by the trigger has actually occurred, and not something similar but potentially detrimental.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DM: Your free perception check(DC 0) tells you there is a human person present in the doorway. Taking the time to verify the identity would require another perception check which is move action, are your going to forgo your readied action?
It's not a move action.
Action
Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
You're not searching for a stimulus at that point -- you've already found it. It is, quite literally, right in front of you. You are reacting to an observable stimulus, so the check is not an action.
Player: I ready an action to shoot the first person who comes through the door.
DM: A person comes through the door, are you going to take your readied action and shoot them?
Player: Who is it?
DM: Your free perception check(DC 0) tells you there is a human person present in the doorway. Taking the time to verify the identity would require another perception check which is move action, are your going to forgo your readied action?This in itself seems horribly unrealistic to me unless there are mitigating circumstances, like poor light or the person is wearing a hood or something. Yes, friendly fire occurs, but still...
Actually it is very realistic.
Any time you are exposed to an unexpected stimulus, it throws your entire brain for a loop and it take you about 300 milliseconds for your brain to realize that something exceptional just happened. At this point, your begin processing the exception, and that can take up a lot more time depending on how much of a surprise it is. Thus a human being getting something unexpected thrown at them can delay their response time by up to a second or more.
A readied action is a standard action and thus takes about 3 seconds to execute. 1 second of delay is enough to push you into the delayed action category.
Taking a track like this in regards to readied actions is sort of akin to the antagonistic genie who offers you 3 wishes, and then screws you over because you aren't minutely specific in your wording. Your table, your rules, but personally I wouldn't stay at a table like that for very long.
Not at all. Remember these rules apply to NPCs as well. Imagine having every other combat the PC run into a room with 20 readied archers.
Generally speaking, I assume that any player who readies action does so within the parameters of harming the enemy and\or helping his allies, not vice versa - unless the player specifically states otherwise. If the circumstances cause difficulty in determination, then I'll warn the player of that.
Which is generally what I do as well.
DM: Your free perception check(DC 0) tells you there is a human person present in the doorway. Taking the time to verify the identity would require another perception check which is move action, are your going to forgo your readied action?It's not a move action.
You're not searching for a stimulus at that point -- you've already found it. It is, quite literally, right in front of you. You are reacting to an observable stimulus, so the check is not an action.
Action
Most Perception checks are reactive, made in response to observable stimulus. Intentionally searching for stimulus is a move action.
CheckPerception has a number of uses, the most common of which is an opposed check versus an opponent's Stealth check to notice the opponent and avoid being surprised. If you are successful, you notice the opponent and can react accordingly. If you fail, your opponent can take a variety of actions, including sneaking past you and attacking you.
Yes, you see the humanoid that is in the doorway via your free reactive perception action. The DC is 0, so I won't make you roll the check.
Perception is also used to notice fine details in the environment. The DC to notice such details varies depending upon distance, the environment, and how noticeable the detail is. The following table gives a number of guidelines.
Oh, you want to take some time to look at the details of the person standing in the doorway? That will cost you a move action, unless it is a detail you already told me you are looking for...
If the player has told me they are looking for some specific detail, then I will up the DC of the reactive perception check based on the difficulty of noticing that particular detail.
1. Ready action for first person through the door - DC 0
2. Ready action for first enemy soldier(assuming a distinctive uniform) or very different race(like goblins) - DC 5
3. Ready action for the first enemy. Now we are talking about quickly noticing a whole set of details like face shape, hair/skin color, equipment, weapons, body language, and cross checking it against a group of people, DC 15 to 20 depending on how familiar you are with your friends.
Any time you are exposed to an unexpected stimulus, it throws your entire brain for a loop and it take you about 300 milliseconds for your brain to realize that something exceptional just happened. At this point, your begin processing the exception, and that can take up a lot more time depending on how much of a surprise it is. Thus a human being getting something unexpected thrown at them can delay their response time by up to a second or more.
A readied action is a standard action and thus takes about 3 seconds to execute. 1 second of delay is enough to push you into the delayed action category.
For a seasoned and trained combatant - which would be the equivalent to an 'adventurer', while a standard reaction time would be that of the typical NPC classes - I don't see that this would be an issue. I would agree if you were talking about me. My reaction time tends to stink in situations like that. But combat isn't my profession.
Not at all. Remember these rules apply to NPCs as well. Imagine having every other combat the PC run into a room with 20 readied archers.
Honestly not certain why this is relevant? I play this way, and have never felt coerced because of it to drop a pointless 20-archer ambush against my players, even though I allow NPCs the same leeway I allow PCs when it comes to readied actions.
Any time you are exposed to an unexpected stimulus, it throws your entire brain for a loop and it take you about 300 milliseconds for your brain to realize that something exceptional just happened. At this point, your begin processing the exception, and that can take up a lot more time depending on how much of a surprise it is. Thus a human being getting something unexpected thrown at them can delay their response time by up to a second or more.
A readied action is a standard action and thus takes about 3 seconds to execute. 1 second of delay is enough to push you into the delayed action category.For a seasoned and trained combatant - which would be the equivalent to an 'adventurer', while a standard reaction time would be that of the typical NPC classes - I don't see that this would be an issue. I would agree if you were talking about me. My reaction time tends to stink in situations like that. But combat isn't my profession.
No, it isn't. A soldier has the same human brain you do. Training can teach you to have a wider range of expectations, but the human response to the unexpected is hardwired into the brain.
Not at all. Remember these rules apply to NPCs as well. Imagine having every other combat the PC run into a room with 20 readied archers.Honestly not certain why this is relevant to be honest. I play this way, and have never felt coerced to drop a pointless 20-archer ambush against my players, even though I allow NPCs the same leeway I allow PCs when it comes to readied actions.
You comment that I am being unfair to the players then fail to see the relevance? It is a lot easier for a DM to abuse readied actions that it is for players. My rules also apply to NPCs, so it the players cannot do it neither can NPCs. That is the epitome of fairness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You comment that I am being unfair to the players then fail to see the relevance? It is a lot easier for a DM to abuse readied actions that it is for players. My rules also apply to NPCs, so it the players cannot do it neither can NPCs. That is the epitome of fairness.Any time you are exposed to an unexpected stimulus, it throws your entire brain for a loop and it take you about 300 milliseconds for your brain to realize that something exceptional just happened. At this point, your begin processing the exception, and that can take up a lot more time depending on how much of a surprise it is. Thus a human being getting something unexpected thrown at them can delay their response time by up to a second or more.
A readied action is a standard action and thus takes about 3 seconds to execute. 1 second of delay is enough to push you into the delayed action category.For a seasoned and trained combatant - which would be the equivalent to an 'adventurer', while a standard reaction time would be that of the typical NPC classes - I don't see that this would be an issue. I would agree if you were talking about me. My reaction time tends to stink in situations like that. But combat isn't my profession.
Not at all. Remember these rules apply to NPCs as well. Imagine having every other combat the PC run into a room with 20 readied archers.Honestly not certain why this is relevant to be honest. I play this way, and have never felt coerced to drop a pointless 20-archer ambush against my players, even though I allow NPCs the same leeway I allow PCs when it comes to readied actions.
I fail to see the relevance because working with players on a readied action, and allowing them to use it as an aid rather than as a tool that can screw them over if they aren't specific enough does not make me set up ambushes against my PCs.
You are essentially 'punishing' the players for not living up to your expectations of detail on describing a readied action. It is, in my opinion, an antagonistic stance, setting up the sort of "DM vs. Players, and the DM is in it to win it" dichotomy that I personally dislike.
As I said, if it works at your table, and your players enjoy it, then more power to you.
You are essentially 'punishing' the players for not living up to your expectations of detail on describing a readied action. It is, in my opinion, an antagonistic stance, setting up the sort of "DM vs. Players, and the DM is in it to win it" dichotomy that I personally dislike.
As I said, if it works at your table, and your players enjoy it, then more power to you.
No, that is not at all what I do, I highly suggest you read everything I wrote, and not focus on the one piece you have pulled out of context.
Specifically
As for my personal style:
1. If the player is too vague, there is a chance they have to decide to take their readied action on vague and confusing information.
2. If the player is too specific, there is a chance the condition is not met.
I warn my players about these things, then I leave it up to them to make their readied actions conditions.
I give my players plenty of feedback about how to word their readied actions, but ultimately, they decide exactly how they want to word it, and I use that wording as a guide to their expectation on the situation.
No, that is not at all what I do, I highly suggest you read everything I wrote, and not focus on the one piece you have pulled out of context.You are essentially 'punishing' the players for not living up to your expectations of detail on describing a readied action. It is, in my opinion, an antagonistic stance, setting up the sort of "DM vs. Players, and the DM is in it to win it" dichotomy that I personally dislike.
As I said, if it works at your table, and your players enjoy it, then more power to you.
I have read everything you wrote. Just because I am only commenting on specific parts does not mean that I am not reading everything.
If a player says, "I ready to shoot the next thing that walks through the door," and that next thing happens to an ally of the party, then you have stated you respond "Your free perception check(DC 0) tells you there is a human person present in the doorway."
Then you state that to discern further detail would require an additional action (which, consequently, is questionable regarding the description of perception; you already have found your stimulus,the rules say nothing about taking a move action to identify it).
What I see you saying is a contradiction. You say that you assume a readied action is taken in context of harming an ally or helping a friend, but the various scenarios that you are laying out are not 'helpful'; they appear, again to me, as punitive for a failure to detail out the readied action.
I give my players plenty of feedback about how to word their readied actions.
And as I said, if that works for you and your table, that is great. I don't personally like it. I don't have to like it, so I'm not certain that it's worthwhile to discuss it further.
No, that is not at all what I do, I highly suggest you read everything I wrote, and not focus on the one piece you have pulled out of context.You are essentially 'punishing' the players for not living up to your expectations of detail on describing a readied action. It is, in my opinion, an antagonistic stance, setting up the sort of "DM vs. Players, and the DM is in it to win it" dichotomy that I personally dislike.
As I said, if it works at your table, and your players enjoy it, then more power to you.
I have read everything you wrote. Just because I am only commenting on specific parts does not mean that I am not reading everything.
If a player says, "I ready to shoot the next thing that walks through the door," and that next thing happens to an ally of the party, then you have stated you respond "Your free perception check(DC 0) tells you there is a human person present in the doorway."
Then you state that to discern further detail would require an additional action (which, consequently, is questionable regarding the description of perception; you already have found your stimulus,the rules say nothing about taking a move action to identify it).
You have yet to show me from the RAW that the reactive check shows you more than "There is something there". What is the DC to notice every single detail about a single human being? Are you claiming that a single DC 0 reactive perception check gives you all of that information for a person standing out in the open?
What I see you saying is a contradiction. You say that you assume a readied action is taken in context of harming an ally or helping a friend, but the various scenarios that you are laying out are not 'helpful'; they appear, again to me, as punitive for a failure to detail out the readied action.
No, I let the player decide what the scenario is. If they don't think there is a chance of a friendly coming through the door, they can ready an attack on the first thing through the door. If they think it is possible or even likely, then they have the option to account for it.
I give my players plenty of feedback about how to word their readied actions, but ultimately, they decide exactly how they want to word it, and I use that wording as a guide to their expectation on the situation.
As for my personal style:
1. If the player is too vague, there is a chance they have to decide to take their readied action on vague and confusing information.
2. If the player is too specific, there is a chance the condition is not met.
I warn my players about these things, then I leave it up to them to make their readied actions conditions.
If I was your player, I'd take that warning as "don't ready actions, because I'm going to screw you on them, just like you should never actually bother using a wish spell". Either that or I'd make sure that everyone in the party is wearing a uniform of some extremely uncommon colour and/or pattern, along with painting the party logo on their shields and wearing big ass signs that have the name of the party written on them so I could prepare all my actions as "anyone who isn't wearing the party uniform" instead of just "anyone"
Educational exchange. I find myself siding with everyone, sort of. As a player, I really want my presence of mind to "ready an action" to pay off. Having a good understanding of the rules and using them well should help me, right? On the other hand, I'm unaware of a clear rules mechanic that allows for the "it all happened so fast" dramatic situation. If my readied action to attack is triggered my a humanoid shape entering the door, then I understand from a roleplaying/dramatic perspective why maybe there's a chance I mess up, besides missing my to hit roll. Even if it's not RAW, I would respect my DM's decision to handle it with a Perception check, as described. I would like a heads up before committing, though. If my DM were to handle the situation in this fashion (I don't recall it ever coming up), most that I play with would warn me the first time about how they plan to adjudicate it. Seems the courteous thing to do. We just don't want to have a player vs. sphinx riddle contest on how to best word this simple task.
Groups of people wearing something like a uniform so they don't accidentally shoot each other? The hell you say!
Really though, it's not unreasonable.
|
Readying allows you to have an action taken when the criteria is met (and the "may" wording means you can do it or forgo it).
If you're general, then it might happen earlier than you planned it to - so you can take it then, or not at all.
If you're specific, then you're more likely to get it happening when you intended, but it may not come out as you anticipated your enemy's moves - or you can forgo it.
Perception comes into it, but that's an unrelated no brainer - if you don't know it's happening, it doesn't work. You can't ready until a guy 3 rooms away casts a silent still spell.
|
Perception comes into it, but that's an unrelated no brainer - if you don't know it's happening, it doesn't work. You can't ready until a guy 3 rooms away casts a silent still spell.
Which is why I don't believe you can ready an action to "shoot the first person who comes through the door".
The point of the initiative roll is it's the start of combat. It represents who reacts first. So in the case of a door opening, the initiative check occurs just as the door opens and both parties become fully aware of each other. There is no surprise round/readied actions.
The reason I'm asking this is because I'm playing a Crossbowman archetype in my current group and I'm finding a lot of trouble with the whole readying thing. Most of the Crossbowman's abilities rely on readying and I'm missing attacks.
For instance, I readied to attack some big lizard when he attacked, and instead the creature trampled. Since it's part of a move action and not an attack, the GM reasoned it didn't trigger my ready.
So I just stood there and got stomped on.
Full honesty, I may have started this strict interpretation back when I was GMing the group, so it's my own fault really.
I basically wanted other people's opinions for when I take over GMing again. From reading your responses I'm thinking I'm going to go with more general triggers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason I'm asking this is because I'm playing a Crossbowman archetype in my current group and I'm finding a lot of trouble with the whole readying thing. Most of the Crossbowman's abilities rely on readying and I'm missing attacks.
For instance, I readied to attack some big lizard when he attacked, and instead the creature trampled. Since it's part of a move action and not an attack, the GM reasoned it didn't trigger my ready.
So I just stood there and got stomped on.
This, to me, sounds like an unnecessarily strict interpretation of "attack." I mean, if it had been a person bull rushing you, you would have been able to get an attack of opportunity against him when he tried something like this, so the idea that a "trample" isn't an "attack" seems counterintuitive.
The key point that I will repeat is that the player isn't negotiating a contract with a devil who delights in twisting wording, and the GM should therefore be cooperative in how he interprets the term; if anything, I'd err on the side of overgenerosity and friendly fire.
Remember that you will get the behavior you reward and incentivize; if you demand that people write thirty-word conditional statements that look like they came out of a rental car agreement in order to ready actions, you will get thirty-word conditional statements that look like they came out of a rental car agreement. I suspect neither you nor your players really want that. You probably want combat that is fast, exciting, and cinematic.
|
|
This, to me, sounds like an unnecessarily strict interpretation of "attack."
Agreed. In plenty of games including PFS I have seen players demand the enemy stand down then ready to attack if they make a hostile action/do anything other than throw down their weapons.
There has been a debate about the whole readied action thing since they introduced brace. Brace says you must ready against a charge which many GM's interpret as you literally ready against a charge. If your opponent chooses to move and attack you oh well your ready does not go off. It should've been wordied, "brace: if your readied attack action is activated by a charging opponent, you deal double damage against the opponent"
If I was your player, I'd take that warning as "don't ready actions, because I'm going to screw you on them, just like you should never actually bother using a wish spell". Either that or I'd make sure that everyone in the party is wearing a uniform of some extremely uncommon colour and/or pattern, along with painting the party logo on their shields and wearing big ass signs that have the name of the party written on them so I could prepare all my actions as "anyone who isn't wearing the party uniform" instead of just "anyone"I give my players plenty of feedback about how to word their readied actions, but ultimately, they decide exactly how they want to word it, and I use that wording as a guide to their expectation on the situation.
As for my personal style:
1. If the player is too vague, there is a chance they have to decide to take their readied action on vague and confusing information.
2. If the player is too specific, there is a chance the condition is not met.
I warn my players about these things, then I leave it up to them to make their readied actions conditions.
But you are not my player and it is obvious you have no clue how it actually plays out in a game.
Example:
Player: I ready an action to shoot the first thing though the door
DM: Ok, perception for that is DC 0, but you won't be watching for friendlies.
Player: Um, maybe I should ready for the first enemy.
DM: Ok, this is a chaotic situation with bad lighting, it is going DC25 perception check to know a friend from a foe right now.
Player: hmm, my perception isn't that great, what about just looking for someone who is hostile
DM: Reading body language is sense motive, Hostile body language is pretty obvious, but the lighting is bad, so DC 15
Player: ok, I am going to do that, I will ready an action to shoot the first hostile person who comes through the door.
As for how it plays out with NPCs.
Lets say the players are attacking the BBEGs castle. There is a group of soldiers hold up in the barracks getting their armor on while the players are fighting in the courtyard. There is one guard in the barracks firing a crossbow at the players through a window. There are 3 guards getting armor on, and there are 3 guards who have readied actions to attack. Now, these guys are trained guards, they wear uniforms to make it easy to tell friend from foe. So they are readied to attack the frist thing through the door that isn't wearing a uniform(perception DC 5). Now if the player's burst in, they get 3 crossbows to the face. If a player grabs a fallen guards tabard and then bust in the door, the guards will not get their readied actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, it isn't. A soldier has the same human brain you do. Training can teach you to have a wider range of expectations, but the human response to the unexpected is hardwired into the brain.
Of course, the whole point of the readied action is that the defined trigger is, by definition, not unexpected.
Similarly, I question the assessment that the readied action is a standard action; I instead interpret the reading of the action itself to be part of the action. Essentially, the decision about what sort of action to take -- do I hit him with a sword, do I draw a secondary weapon, do I clap my hands together loudly, do I sing the Chelaxian national anthem? -- have already been taken, and hence much of the "neurological" work has already been done prior to the readied action. Similarly, as much of the physical preparation work as possible has been done -- for example, your crossbow is already lined up at the target and your finger is already on the trigger; if you know what you're doing, you've probably already pressed down on the trigger to take up the slack. As a result, you can fire a 'readied' crossbow bolt much more quickly than you can fire an ordinary crossbow bolt as a snap shot, where you need to identify a target, move the crossbow into firing position and press the trigger fully.
That's also why I disagree with kaisc006:
Which is why I don't believe you can ready an action to "shoot the first person who comes through the door".The point of the initiative roll is it's the start of combat. It represents who reacts first. So in the case of a door opening, the initiative check occurs just as the door opens and both parties become fully aware of each other. There is no surprise round/readied actions.
In theorycrafting terms, the whole point of the readied action is to establish that you are already aware of what you expect to happen by defining a particular event that you are expecting and reacting to. Essentially, it's a way of defining that you GET a surprise round precisely because you have preemptively announced your awareness of the person on the other side of the door.
In terms of game mechanics, the idea that there are actions that can only be taken in combat is an unrealistic simplification. I can easily have a non-combat situation where reaction speed is nevertheless a factor -- if I'm trying to defuse an explosive, for example, I can easily ready an action to take cover if I see sparks (which I expect will ignite the gunpowder). The fact that the gunpowder isn't a creature and can't roll initiative doesn't make my action nonsensical. And, of course, I can also ready an action in combat to shoot the first person through a door, if, for example, I'm expecting reinforcements to be drawn by the noise. (The BSF can handle the group of orcs, but their ogre king is likely to come in via the doorway to the throne room, so I'll drop him as soon as shows himself.)
And, of course, all the neurological arguments about decision making support the fact this as well. Have you heard of the OODA loop? It was specifically developed by the military, specifically the USAF, to understand how combat decisions are made. The acronym stands for "observe, orient, decide, act."
Let's look at this from the position of the ogre chieftain for a moment. He hears combat outside his throne room, and so he decides to check it out.
* He first has to "observe," that is, to physically interact with the system. He's already "observed" something simply by hearing noise, but he'll probably want a visual observation as well. If all combatants are invisible, then he observes nothing further. More likely he sees the party going at it with hammer and tongs.
* He then has to "orient" himself; figure out what's going on at a tactical level. He will determine who the good guys are, who the bad guys are, what the situation is.
* He then must "decide" what action to take, including how to step in, whom to help, or possibly whether to run like a schoolgirl.
* Only then will he "act."
By contrast, the readied sniper has already observed (the door and the opening of the door, the triggered action), already oriented and decided (that upon the opening of the door, he's going to shoot whatever comes through) and need only act to complete the cycle. Basically, he's done 3/4 of the work, which means that he's going to fire his bolt before the ogre has a chance even to complete his decision.
Perception comes into it, but that's an unrelated no brainer - if you don't know it's happening, it doesn't work. You can't ready until a guy 3 rooms away casts a silent still spell.Which is why I don't believe you can ready an action to "shoot the first person who comes through the door".
The point of the initiative roll is it's the start of combat. It represents who reacts first. So in the case of a door opening, the initiative check occurs just as the door opens and both parties become fully aware of each other. There is no surprise round/readied actions.
Now that goes to the question, can you ready an action outside of combat? The RAW seems to assume you are in combat when you ready actions, but it does not explicity say you must be in combat.
That gets really fuzzy because different DMs run combat differently, and allowing completely unrestricted readied actions outside of combat is ripe for abuse. I do allow readied actions outside of combat, but I put some limits on it.
1. If you ready the same action round after round, eventually you lose focus. IE if I draw an arrow and point it at a doorway eventually I will get bored and my attention will wander. DC 10 wisdom check with a -1 per sequential round.
2. You must have a good reason in character for readying the action.
But this is more on my house rules on things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason I'm asking this is because I'm playing a Crossbowman archetype in my current group and I'm finding a lot of trouble with the whole readying thing. Most of the Crossbowman's abilities rely on readying and I'm missing attacks.
For instance, I readied to attack some big lizard when he attacked, and instead the creature trampled. Since it's part of a move action and not an attack, the GM reasoned it didn't trigger my ready.
So I just stood there and got stomped on.
Full honesty, I may have started this strict interpretation back when I was GMing the group, so it's my own fault really.
I basically wanted other people's opinions for when I take over GMing again. From reading your responses I'm thinking I'm going to go with more general triggers.
As Orfamay Quest pointed out, run these by the players intent, not by a looking for a loop-hole free legalistic statement of what their readied action is.
If the party is fighting a demon and someone readies an action to attack if it casts a spell, I'd also allow that attack for a supernatural ability use - it's enough like a spell without requiring the player to understand the rules to such a depth that they even know there is a difference.
DM: Ok, this is a chaotic situation with bad lighting, it is going DC25 perception check to know a friend from a foe right now.
In this situation do you hide the map from your players, then just tell them things like? "Bob, a humanoid figure just moved into the square just north of you. Because of the bad lighting your not sure if that is Joe, or the guy you saw fighting Joe 20 seconds ago. You can full attack it, or you can take a move action to try and determine if that is indeed Joe or the guy that he was fighting."
If not, why not? Because that is what I am seeing you doing with readied actions here. I think your approach adds some interesting possibilities, but for me, more often then not I'd just not use readied actions at all under such a system - they simply become to cumbersome for something that already has such a small niche use.
Stuff
That actually ties in with some of my thoughts I was thinking about last night.
Extreme example.
Lets assume you have an open doorway 5 feet wide.
You ready an action to shoot anything that appears in the doorway.
A level 1 human with expeditious retreat and the Run feat goes running by.
Base move of 60 x 5 = 600 foot move per round. That means they are moving 5 feet every 0.05 seconds.
They pass in front of the doorway, and you shoot them dead before they move another 5 feet.
You made the decision to shoot, and took the shot in under 0.05 seconds.
In this situation do you hide the map from your players, then just tell them things like? "Bob, a humanoid figure just moved into the square just north of you. Because of the bad lighting your not sure if that is Joe, or the guy you saw fighting Joe 20 seconds ago. You can full attack it, or you can take a move action to try and determine if that is indeed Joe or the guy that he was fighting."
If not, why not? Because that is what I am seeing you doing with readied actions here. I think your approach adds some interesting possibilities, but for me, more often then not I'd just not use readied actions at all under such a system - they simply become to cumbersome for something that already has such a small niche use.
In that context, we are talking about reading an action to attack someone entering the room. I generally assume they know everyone who is in the room with them unless there is a good reason not to(invisible friends and foes/complete darkness/etc.). Someone who enters the room will be an unknown for at least a few moments. A good perception check would quickly pick up on details that let them tell friend from foe.
Also, when I say chaotic, I am specifically thinking about a larger battle with a lot of new allies that you haven't had a lot of time to get familiar with. If it were just a handful of longtime allies, the DC would be more like 15, even with bad lighting.
Now that goes to the question, can you ready an action outside of combat? The RAW seems to assume you are in combat when you ready actions, but it does not explicity say you must be in combat.
That gets really fuzzy because different DMs run combat differently, and allowing completely unrestricted readied actions outside of combat is ripe for abuse. I do allow readied actions outside of combat, but I put some limits on it.
1. If you ready the same action round after round, eventually you lose focus. IE if I draw an arrow and point it at a doorway eventually I will get bored and my attention will wander. DC 10 wisdom check with a -1 per sequential round.
2. You must have a good reason in character for readying the action.But this is more on my house rules on things.
Those seem reasonable house rules to me. I think from a verisimilitude point of view, it makes no sense to disallow readied actions outside of combat; the idea that my ability to aim a weapon at a doorway varies depending upon whether or not someone else is swinging a sword at a third party violates my sense of propriety and fitness.
My only quibble is that the wisdom check will be failed too quickly; DC 10 + 1 per sequential round generally means anyone except the cleric can't focus on any task for longer than about a minute and has a fairly good chance of losing focus within 30 seconds. Indeed, an average commoner will fail to focus for twelve consecutive second about half the time.
Extreme example.
Lets assume you have an open doorway 5 feet wide.
You ready an action to shoot anything that appears in the doorway.
A level 1 human with expeditious retreat and the Run feat goes running by.
Base move of 60 x 5 = 600 foot move per round. That means they are moving 5 feet every 0.05 seconds.
They pass in front of the doorway, and you shoot them dead before they move another 5 feet.
You made the decision to shoot, and took the shot in under 0.05 seconds.
Shrug. As far as I'm concerned, the magic makes it unrealistic to begin with. Strip the magic spell out of it, he's firing in a much more reasonable tenth of a second, especially when you consider that he has the advantage of hearing the runner approach the doorway and hence can prepare to fire.
I can see certain actions being readied outside of combat. Imagine a foot-race. The contestants all ready an action to begin sprinting as soon as the starter's pistol fires. That way they all go on the same initiative count.
Or imagine two taxi-cabs waiting at a traffic light. One is not in a particular hurry, so he's just delaying. The other is in a hurry, so he readies an action to hit the gas when the light turns green. Guess who's going to get off the line first ?
The following is just what I'd do, possibly not RAW.
The way I usually handle readied actions readied before combat begins is that the action (if taken) is that character's surprise round action. Imagine a party about to deal with a found chest. The fighter readies an action to attack anyone who comes through the door. The cleric readies an action to bash the chest with his mace if it turns out to be a mimic or otherwise needs bashing. The wizard casts detect magic and concentrates to detect any magic that might go off once the chest is opened. The rogue begins checking the chest for traps (and sets off the mundane alarm attached to it).
Responders, now aware that there's someone in the room messing with the chest would get a surprise round, but anyone with an appropriate readied action gets to go too. If the responders rush the door, the fighter gets to go in the surprise round using the action he readied. The rogue (if he otherwise doesn't get to go in the surprise round due to perception or some other ability) doesn't, because he didn't have a readied action (he was busy checking the chest and set the alarm off). The cleric is focused on the chest itself, so unless the reponse is the chest animating, likely won't get to go in the surprise round.
Extreme example.
Lets assume you have an open doorway 5 feet wide.
You ready an action to shoot anything that appears in the doorway.
A level 1 human with expeditious retreat and the Run feat goes running by.
Base move of 60 x 5 = 600 foot move per round. That means they are moving 5 feet every 0.05 seconds.
They pass in front of the doorway, and you shoot them dead before they move another 5 feet.
You made the decision to shoot, and took the shot in under 0.05 seconds.
Shrug. As far as I'm concerned, the magic makes it unrealistic to begin with. Strip the magic spell out of it, he's firing in a much more reasonable tenth of a second, especially when you consider that he has the advantage of hearing the runner approach the doorway and hence can prepare to fire.
Yeah, I was just throwing it out there for perspective. It started with me asking the question, just how long do they have to make the decision to fire or not.
A more common situation would be a normal human making a double move past the door. In that case they are moving 5 feet every half a second. Still not a ton of time, but more in line with what is reasonable.
Now that goes to the question, can you ready an action outside of combat? The RAW seems to assume you are in combat when you ready actions, but it does not explicity say you must be in combat.
That gets really fuzzy because different DMs run combat differently, and allowing completely unrestricted readied actions outside of combat is ripe for abuse. I do allow readied actions outside of combat, but I put some limits on it.
1. If you ready the same action round after round, eventually you lose focus. IE if I draw an arrow and point it at a doorway eventually I will get bored and my attention will wander. DC 10 wisdom check with a -1 per sequential round.
2. You must have a good reason in character for readying the action.But this is more on my house rules on things.
Those seem reasonable house rules to me. I think from a verisimilitude point of view, it makes no sense to disallow readied actions outside of combat; the idea that my ability to aim a weapon at a doorway varies depending upon whether or not someone else is swinging a sword at a third party violates my sense of propriety and fitness.
My only quibble is that the wisdom check will be failed too quickly; DC 10 + 1 per sequential round generally means anyone except the cleric can't focus on any task for longer than about a minute and has a fairly good chance of losing focus within 30 seconds. Indeed, an average commoner will fail to focus for twelve consecutive second about half the time.
I have been playing planetside 2 a lot, so I have been in situations like this a lot, IE guarding a room waiting for someone to come through the door. I find after more than about 10-15 seconds, my attention starts to wonder. What about the other door? What is my friend doing? Maybe I should move over there... and so on. So I think those numbers are reasonable, but you can always adjust the base DC to something you feel is better.
|
|
I can see certain actions being readied outside of combat. Imagine a foot-race. The contestants all ready an action to begin sprinting as soon as the starter's pistol fires. That way they all go on the same initiative count.
This is a perfect example for why a readied action doesn't make sense outside of combat because in a foot race after the gun goes off, every runner will not step off on the same initiative.
You might know someone is on the other side of a door, but you have no idea when they will open the door. Hence why an initiative check is necessary over a readied action. If you want to use real world logic (which I prefer not to because using real world logic vs RAW is pointless), when breaching a room the no. 1 man through the "fatal funnel", i.e. the doorway, would be blown to pieces by all the bad guys readying their weapons. The fact is that is not the case! It's actually the no. 2 who gets blasted because no. 1 moves into the room faster than the enemy can react.
I tried to read everything though skimmed a bit when I realized that many of the examples and situations use a readied action in reaction after the triggered event.
By RAW, a readied action happens before the triggered event so examples like shooting the next guy who through the door don't work as the shooting would occur before the target is in sight.
In the games I have played in, we found that when using the readied action mechanic, your trigger needs to be a mechanic such as ...
The target uses an attack/full attack action
the target uses a move action to do ....
The target casts a spell
By RAW, a readied action happens before the triggered event so examples like shooting the next guy who through the door don't work as the shooting would occur before the target is in sight.
The target should be in sight as soon as the door is opened. Target steps through the open door, still in plain sight, and triggers the readied action.