Ready action: spring & sneak attack [Archive] - Wizards Community

Ready action: spring & sneak attack [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Krispieman
07-04-07, 08:46 AM While working on some rogue opponents I had an interesting tactical idea:

What if 2 rogues, both with the Spring Attack feat, readied an action to move adjacent to a target, flanking it, attack and then move on?

Would both of them be allowed sneak attack damage, or just one, or neither? Following the normal initiative rules, I'd have to say neither, but if you think "outside the box" and consider that each combat round pretty much happens simultaneously, they'd both move at the same time (initiative count) and strike their target from flanking positions allowing for sneak attack damage.

I couldn't find any rule references, aside from those based on the order of initiative, that conclusively support or deny this tactic, so I was hoping some of you could (either way).

Thanks in advance,
K-man :cool:
deduke
07-04-07, 10:31 AM While it sounds cool this tactic is not allowed within the standard rules, flanking gives the payers a benefit and has a risk that comes with it. If 1 character moves next to an enemy that enemy will be able to make a full attack against the character. The character's friends however will be able to use spring attack to move into a flanking position.
By allowing them both to use spring attack and flank with eachother there is no risk involved in getting the flanking bonus.

According to the rules they cant ready an action like this either

Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action.

They cant move, attack and move again in 1 ready action since that is a full round action.
weasel0
07-04-07, 02:41 PM Rogue A readies an action to spring and go when enemy A gets to X
Rogue B readies an action to spring attack after Rogue A moves but before he attacks
When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speedOne could look at it as a standard action. Or as most people would, a standard action placed inside a single move action thus equating a full round of activity.
Either way you want to look at it, either one rogue could benefit(IE-Rogue B would have to finish moving and then Rogue A would finish) or both would wind up sitting next to the enemy but still flanking.
It's a great plan, but the rules don't really help the vision come to fruition.
Marcus Majarra
07-04-07, 04:44 PM It's possible for both to flank with only one next to the enemy after attacks:

Assuming both rogues act before the opponent does, Rogue 1 takes a move action to go in a square adjacent to the opponent and readies an attack to be launched when Rogue 2 flanks with him. Rogue 2 uses Spring Attack to move into flanking position (allowing Rogue 1 to sneak attack with the readied action), sneak attacks, and moves away.

This is a pretty much rinse-and-repeat tactic, albeit the rogues can mitigate the risk by alternating turns to stick next to the opponent.
Krispieman
07-04-07, 05:14 PM I figured it was to good to be true. But I must say I rather like Marcus' suggestion. Also because I'll probably be using more than just 2 rogues in the encounter I planned, it could prove to be a devastating tactic for my PCs.

And if all else fails, I'll just allow it because it "looks cool" when you picture it: 2 guys running at you from opposite sides, thrusting a rapier into your kidney (or other vital organ) and run away before you notice the blood starting to flow.

Anyways, thanks for the help & advice.

K-man :cool:
Nom
07-04-07, 08:20 PM And if all else fails, I'll just allow it because it "looks cool" when you picture itBe very careful using this as a justification to break rules (as opposed to figuring out how to model an interesting tactic within the rules). It's a bad idea to break rules just to allow a PC to do something that "looks cool". It's an order of magnitude worse to break them so that an NPC can do something that "looks cool" against the PCs (it's called "DM cheating"). If your group plays fast and loose with the rules then they might not mind, but if they care about the mechanics at all then they will not like it when the answer to "how do they do that?" is "oh, I'm letting them break the rules".

Just do what Marcus suggested. 1: Move, ready. 2: Spring move, attack (ready triggers: attack), finish spring move. One rogue gets the full spring attack benefit, the other does not. But most importantly, it's all completely above board.

In fact, it is a fairly standard tactic for my group when moving to flank. Tougher character moves in and readies attack. Weaker character then moves in and both attack with flank. Doesn't work as well with a full attack, but you can't have everything.
Marcus Majarra
07-04-07, 09:00 PM As they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Unless you're two Spring Attack rogues with the Opportunist ability. That's just nasty.
Krispieman
07-05-07, 06:16 AM As they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Unless you're two Spring Attack rogues with the Opportunist ability. That's just nasty.

Actually, they would be. Seeing as it's for my epic campaign, I often get to use the higher level abilities.

@Nom: The only situation in which I would consider actually breaking the rules "because it looks cool" would be if my PCs were already on the winning hand. Because they're all level 21/22 and some are fairly optimized, it's challenging for me to create challenging encounters for them.

Then again, because it's epic play, I often find that bending the rules to allow certain tactics (both for myself, and the PCs) keeps play interesting and adds to the feeling that there's more to D&D than level 20 ;)

K-man :cool:
WolfHati
07-05-07, 06:26 AM Spring attack takes a standard action. It allows you, while using a standard action to make an attack, to move before and after your attack up to your movement. So it would be perfectly fine to ready it.

There's no reason why people couldn't move simultaneously in the rules is there?
Leilond
07-05-07, 08:20 AM Spring attack takes a standard action. It allows you, while using a standard action to make an attack, to move before and after your attack up to your movement. So it would be perfectly fine to ready it.

There's no reason why people couldn't move simultaneously in the rules is there?

The spring attack let you attack during your move, it doesn't let you "move and attack" as standard action. If it was like that it was specified, and it isn't. It only say that you can move before and after the attack, but it never say that you can move without consuming your move action
artgrtr8u
07-05-07, 09:09 AM It might be possible for both rogues to use spring attack, but only one to get a sneak attack.

rogue A: partial move to target, attack target, ready a move action to expend the rest of his movement after rogue B attacks.

rogue B: ready spring attack action for immediately after rogue A attacks.

I know that's stretching the spring attack - ready action relation somewhat, since you're readying a move action part of which you've used all ready. Doesn't really comply with RAW, but I'd probably allow it.

I know you don't want to allow something just because it "looks cool", but it's also important to let your players be clever. I like the idea of this tactic too much not to find some way to allow at least a version of it.
Leilond
07-05-07, 09:34 AM It might be possible for both rogues to use spring attack, but only one to get a sneak attack.

rogue A: partial move to target, attack target, ready a move action to expend the rest of his movement after rogue B attacks.

It can't be done. If you attacked, you consumed your standard action. To ready an action you need a standard action.

Attackin during a sprin action simply means
1) Start your move action
2) Use your standard action to attack
3) Continue your move action
You cannot do anything else during that turn, because nothing in the spring attack rules say that you can move without spending your move action nor is written that you can attack withou spending your standard action.
It only let you move before and after your attack, but it's still a "move" and still need a move action
artgrtr8u
07-05-07, 11:22 AM It can't be done. If you attacked, you consumed your standard action. To ready an action you need a standard action.

Attackin during a sprin action simply means
1) Start your move action
2) Use your standard action to attack
3) Continue your move action
You cannot do anything else during that turn, because nothing in the spring attack rules say that you can move without spending your move action nor is written that you can attack withou spending your standard action.
It only let you move before and after your attack, but it's still a "move" and still need a move action

You're right, that's why I said it didn't comply with the RAW.

But,...since spring attack requires that you have part of your move action left after the attack, I would allow players to ready a partial move action (Step 3 above).

Again, not how the RAW work, so don't go arguing it's legality to anyone, but it's how I'd allow players to do it. Use it or dismiss it as you feel fit. We could argue about it stretching or breaking rules until the cows come home, but stretching and/or breaking rules works on a group-by-group basis. I play with a very good group of guys (we've been running continuously for 8 years now) who don't get into a lot of disputes about this sort of thing and we're pretty good at knowing what rule-stretching does or doesn't work for us.
Leilond
07-06-07, 04:50 AM But if you do like this you're really powering up a lot the feat
Pratically that feat make you use a "partial move action" to perform something that usually need a "standard action"

The issue is that if you only attack, moving or not, you can't "ready an action" because ready an action require a standard action, why do you allow it after moving?
It sounds illogical and unbalancing.
All the issue of "ready an action" is to forgive your chance to make a standard action in your turn to take it during the opponent turn. You remove the "sacrifice" letting the player take a standard action after he already attacked, making the "ready action" even more powerfull than it already is
JustinA
07-06-07, 11:45 AM Would both of them be allowed sneak attack damage, or just one, or neither? Following the normal initiative rules, I'd have to say neither, but if you think "outside the box" and consider that each combat round pretty much happens simultaneously, they'd both move at the same time (initiative count) and strike their target from flanking positions allowing for sneak attack damage.

There are no rules for handling simultaneous actions. This invalidates lots of interesting tactics, including this one. Most recently, in my group, I had two characters try to grab opposite ends of a rope and run parallel to each other in an attempt to trip up some opponents -- this is also quite impossible in D&D using RAW.

This also creates odd perceptual artifacts in other places. For example, imagine a situation where the PCs announce that they're all running away simultaneously. (Or a fear-response that produces the same thing.) They all run down a hallway and trigger a fireball trap. Now, if this actually happened, they'd all be caught in the fireball. But, without any way to resolve that simultaneous action, the character with the highest initiative not only has a slight lead over his comrades, he's up to 120 feet ahead of them (assuming a 30 ft. speed).

It should be noted, however, that there is one specific exception to this in the RAW: The mounted combat rules specifically allow for simultaneous actions. (I'm currently working on a D20 supplement which works to expand the mounted combat rules to cover things like aerial mounts and the like, and working out the implications of the minimal rules for simultaneous action can, in fact, be quite nightmarish even when both characters are confined to the same space.)

I got into a discussion earlier this year on Usenet regarding this, and ended up proposing the following rule:

"Allies may choose to move simultaneously. In order to do so, the character with the higher initiative count must delay their turn to the lowest initiative count among the characters moving simultaneously. The allies may choose to resolve their other actions either before or after the simultaneous move, but they must all make the same choice. If a character is allowed to move both before and after another action (for example, by using the Spring Attack feat), they may resolve that action during the simultaneous move. Characters may not move simultaneously as part of a full action unless all the characters are taking the same full action (such as a Charge). If any character is interrupted during the course of a simultaneous move, all characters making the move are interrupted.

Characters moving simultaneously move the same distance at the same time, regardless of differences in their speeds (although characters with larger speeds may complete the remainder of their move after their slower allies have reached the end of their movement).

In order to move simultaneously, characters must be able to communicate with each other in some way (verbally, mentally, or visually). After moving simultaneously, a character's initiative result becomes the initiative count on which they moved simultaneously."

This rule allows simultaneous movement, but not simultaneous actions (with a handful of specific exceptions). Simultaneous actions can cause a plethora of complex interactions which become impossible to handle by any general rule (this is why we use an abstraction of discrete action in the first place).

Handling the simultaneous movement through a kludge where everyone moves 5' at a time (despite different movement speeds) is, self-admittedly, a kludge. But it simplifies things considerably.

As an optional rule, you might consider still allowing modifiers from hampered movement and running to effect simultaneous movement. These are easy to implement in comparison to ratios between different character speeds. Thus, a character running would travel 10 feet for every 5 feet traveled by a non-running ally. A character suffering a x2 hampered movement would only 5 feet for every 10 feet traveled by a non-hampered ally. (Unfortunately, a character running at x3 still creates problems. I'd still recommend allowing them to move 10 for every 5 without increasing the total distance they can move.)

Of course, you can also implement full speed ratios if you'd like. The easiest way would be to construct a table.

What was the question? Ah, yes.

By RAW? No, you can't do it.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net
Marcus Majarra
07-06-07, 02:39 PM There exists at least one instance of simultaneous actions within the RAW: mounted combat. The mount acts as directed on the rider's initiative count. Although I don't see it as much as being perfectly simultaneous, I view it as being a coordinated action.

Mounted combat serves as a good model for coordinated actions. The example of the two characters pulling on opposite ends of the rope and running could simply be the equivalent of one character (secondary) acting on the other's (primary) initiative count as directd by this character (primary), all within the limits of the actions available to each character.

Also, it's interesting to notice that Secrets of Xen'drik introduced a new kind of trap: the encounter trap. These traps have many of the typical characteristics of usual traps (with triggers, find and disarm mechanisms, CRs, and so on), but they also have an initiative count (and can even surprise characters) on which their effects take place. This kind of trap makes the scenario you presented possible.
pedro2112
01-07-08, 01:52 AM It's possible for both to flank with only one next to the enemy after attacks:

Assuming both rogues act before the opponent does, Rogue 1 takes a move action to go in a square adjacent to the opponent and readies an attack to be launched when Rogue 2 flanks with him. Rogue 2 uses Spring Attack to move into flanking position (allowing Rogue 1 to sneak attack with the readied action), sneak attacks, and moves away.

This is a pretty much rinse-and-repeat tactic, albeit the rogues can mitigate the risk by alternating turns to stick next to the opponent.

Query:

Can one "ready" an action after making a move action in one's turn? If not, then one cannot do what you describe above.

I had always thought that in lieu of one's turn, one can ready an action. I never knew that one could start one's turn by perfoming a move action, and then decide to ready the 'standard action' portion of one's move.
Marcus Majarra
01-07-08, 03:35 AM Whoa. Talk about reviving old threads. My last response was six months ago to the date.

In any case, it's perfectly possible to ready an action after taking a move action. If you'll look in the rulebooks, you'll notice that readying an action is a standard action, regardless of the action you're readying (which can be a free, move, or standard action). As such, you can ready an action at any time you'd be entitled to a standard action.
Finarin Panjoro
01-08-08, 02:19 PM Keep in mind that while you can move and then ready an action you cannot ready a 5 foot step with that action since you already moved. You could ready another move action, but there's no way to ready any sort of move and attack combination at this point (ranged attacks and spells are your best bet here).

Also the DMG specifically allows for "ad hoc simultaneity" imposed by the DM at appropriate times. The examples mentioned above (the clothesline rope maneuver, party panicked fleeing into a trap, etc) are all examples where the DM should impose simultaneity.
pedro2112
01-10-08, 01:27 AM Whoa. Talk about reviving old threads. My last response was six months ago to the date.

Yes, I've got a lot of catching up to do.

In any event, thanks for the explanation. It was very helpful.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Krispieman 07-04-07, 08:46 AM	While working on some rogue opponents I had an interesting tactical idea: What if 2 rogues, both with the Spring Attack feat, readied an action to move adjacent to a target, flanking it, attack and then move on? Would both of them be allowed sneak attack damage, or just one, or neither? Following the normal initiative rules, I'd have to say neither, but if you think "outside the box" and consider that each combat round pretty much happens simultaneously, they'd both move at the same time (initiative count) and strike their target from flanking positions allowing for sneak attack damage. I couldn't find any rule references, aside from those based on the order of initiative, that conclusively support or deny this tactic, so I was hoping some of you could (either way). Thanks in advance, K-man :cool:
deduke 07-04-07, 10:31 AM	While it sounds cool this tactic is not allowed within the standard rules, flanking gives the payers a benefit and has a risk that comes with it. If 1 character moves next to an enemy that enemy will be able to make a full attack against the character. The character's friends however will be able to use spring attack to move into a flanking position. By allowing them both to use spring attack and flank with eachother there is no risk involved in getting the flanking bonus. According to the rules they cant ready an action like this either Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action. They cant move, attack and move again in 1 ready action since that is a full round action.
weasel0 07-04-07, 02:41 PM	Rogue A readies an action to spring and go when enemy A gets to X Rogue B readies an action to spring attack after Rogue A moves but before he attacks When using the attack action with a melee weapon, you can move both before and after the attack, provided that your total distance moved is not greater than your speedOne could look at it as a standard action. Or as most people would, a standard action placed inside a single move action thus equating a full round of activity. Either way you want to look at it, either one rogue could benefit(IE-Rogue B would have to finish moving and then Rogue A would finish) or both would wind up sitting next to the enemy but still flanking. It's a great plan, but the rules don't really help the vision come to fruition.
Marcus Majarra 07-04-07, 04:44 PM	It's possible for both to flank with only one next to the enemy after attacks: Assuming both rogues act before the opponent does, Rogue 1 takes a move action to go in a square adjacent to the opponent and readies an attack to be launched when Rogue 2 flanks with him. Rogue 2 uses Spring Attack to move into flanking position (allowing Rogue 1 to sneak attack with the readied action), sneak attacks, and moves away. This is a pretty much rinse-and-repeat tactic, albeit the rogues can mitigate the risk by alternating turns to stick next to the opponent.
Krispieman 07-04-07, 05:14 PM	I figured it was to good to be true. But I must say I rather like Marcus' suggestion. Also because I'll probably be using more than just 2 rogues in the encounter I planned, it could prove to be a devastating tactic for my PCs. And if all else fails, I'll just allow it because it "looks cool" when you picture it: 2 guys running at you from opposite sides, thrusting a rapier into your kidney (or other vital organ) and run away before you notice the blood starting to flow. Anyways, thanks for the help & advice. K-man :cool:
Nom 07-04-07, 08:20 PM	And if all else fails, I'll just allow it because it "looks cool" when you picture itBe very careful using this as a justification to break rules (as opposed to figuring out how to model an interesting tactic within the rules). It's a bad idea to break rules just to allow a PC to do something that "looks cool". It's an order of magnitude worse to break them so that an NPC can do something that "looks cool" against the PCs (it's called "DM cheating"). If your group plays fast and loose with the rules then they might not mind, but if they care about the mechanics at all then they will not like it when the answer to "how do they do that?" is "oh, I'm letting them break the rules". Just do what Marcus suggested. 1: Move, ready. 2: Spring move, attack (ready triggers: attack), finish spring move. One rogue gets the full spring attack benefit, the other does not. But most importantly, it's all completely above board. In fact, it is a fairly standard tactic for my group when moving to flank. Tougher character moves in and readies attack. Weaker character then moves in and both attack with flank. Doesn't work as well with a full attack, but you can't have everything.
Marcus Majarra 07-04-07, 09:00 PM	As they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Unless you're two Spring Attack rogues with the Opportunist ability. That's just nasty.
Krispieman 07-05-07, 06:16 AM	As they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Unless you're two Spring Attack rogues with the Opportunist ability. That's just nasty. Actually, they would be. Seeing as it's for my epic campaign, I often get to use the higher level abilities. @Nom: The only situation in which I would consider actually breaking the rules "because it looks cool" would be if my PCs were already on the winning hand. Because they're all level 21/22 and some are fairly optimized, it's challenging for me to create challenging encounters for them. Then again, because it's epic play, I often find that bending the rules to allow certain tactics (both for myself, and the PCs) keeps play interesting and adds to the feeling that there's more to D&D than level 20 ;) K-man :cool:
WolfHati 07-05-07, 06:26 AM	Spring attack takes a standard action. It allows you, while using a standard action to make an attack, to move before and after your attack up to your movement. So it would be perfectly fine to ready it. There's no reason why people couldn't move simultaneously in the rules is there?
Leilond 07-05-07, 08:20 AM	Spring attack takes a standard action. It allows you, while using a standard action to make an attack, to move before and after your attack up to your movement. So it would be perfectly fine to ready it. There's no reason why people couldn't move simultaneously in the rules is there? The spring attack let you attack during your move, it doesn't let you "move and attack" as standard action. If it was like that it was specified, and it isn't. It only say that you can move before and after the attack, but it never say that you can move without consuming your move action
artgrtr8u 07-05-07, 09:09 AM	It might be possible for both rogues to use spring attack, but only one to get a sneak attack. rogue A: partial move to target, attack target, ready a move action to expend the rest of his movement after rogue B attacks. rogue B: ready spring attack action for immediately after rogue A attacks. I know that's stretching the spring attack - ready action relation somewhat, since you're readying a move action part of which you've used all ready. Doesn't really comply with RAW, but I'd probably allow it. I know you don't want to allow something just because it "looks cool", but it's also important to let your players be clever. I like the idea of this tactic too much not to find some way to allow at least a version of it.
Leilond 07-05-07, 09:34 AM	It might be possible for both rogues to use spring attack, but only one to get a sneak attack. rogue A: partial move to target, attack target, ready a move action to expend the rest of his movement after rogue B attacks. It can't be done. If you attacked, you consumed your standard action. To ready an action you need a standard action. Attackin during a sprin action simply means 1) Start your move action 2) Use your standard action to attack 3) Continue your move action You cannot do anything else during that turn, because nothing in the spring attack rules say that you can move without spending your move action nor is written that you can attack withou spending your standard action. It only let you move before and after your attack, but it's still a "move" and still need a move action
artgrtr8u 07-05-07, 11:22 AM	It can't be done. If you attacked, you consumed your standard action. To ready an action you need a standard action. Attackin during a sprin action simply means 1) Start your move action 2) Use your standard action to attack 3) Continue your move action You cannot do anything else during that turn, because nothing in the spring attack rules say that you can move without spending your move action nor is written that you can attack withou spending your standard action. It only let you move before and after your attack, but it's still a "move" and still need a move action You're right, that's why I said it didn't comply with the RAW. But,...since spring attack requires that you have part of your move action left after the attack, I would allow players to ready a partial move action (Step 3 above). Again, not how the RAW work, so don't go arguing it's legality to anyone, but it's how I'd allow players to do it. Use it or dismiss it as you feel fit. We could argue about it stretching or breaking rules until the cows come home, but stretching and/or breaking rules works on a group-by-group basis. I play with a very good group of guys (we've been running continuously for 8 years now) who don't get into a lot of disputes about this sort of thing and we're pretty good at knowing what rule-stretching does or doesn't work for us.
Leilond 07-06-07, 04:50 AM	But if you do like this you're really powering up a lot the feat Pratically that feat make you use a "partial move action" to perform something that usually need a "standard action" The issue is that if you only attack, moving or not, you can't "ready an action" because ready an action require a standard action, why do you allow it after moving? It sounds illogical and unbalancing. All the issue of "ready an action" is to forgive your chance to make a standard action in your turn to take it during the opponent turn. You remove the "sacrifice" letting the player take a standard action after he already attacked, making the "ready action" even more powerfull than it already is
JustinA 07-06-07, 11:45 AM	Would both of them be allowed sneak attack damage, or just one, or neither? Following the normal initiative rules, I'd have to say neither, but if you think "outside the box" and consider that each combat round pretty much happens simultaneously, they'd both move at the same time (initiative count) and strike their target from flanking positions allowing for sneak attack damage. There are no rules for handling simultaneous actions. This invalidates lots of interesting tactics, including this one. Most recently, in my group, I had two characters try to grab opposite ends of a rope and run parallel to each other in an attempt to trip up some opponents -- this is also quite impossible in D&D using RAW. This also creates odd perceptual artifacts in other places. For example, imagine a situation where the PCs announce that they're all running away simultaneously. (Or a fear-response that produces the same thing.) They all run down a hallway and trigger a fireball trap. Now, if this actually happened, they'd all be caught in the fireball. But, without any way to resolve that simultaneous action, the character with the highest initiative not only has a slight lead over his comrades, he's up to 120 feet ahead of them (assuming a 30 ft. speed). It should be noted, however, that there is one specific exception to this in the RAW: The mounted combat rules specifically allow for simultaneous actions. (I'm currently working on a D20 supplement which works to expand the mounted combat rules to cover things like aerial mounts and the like, and working out the implications of the minimal rules for simultaneous action can, in fact, be quite nightmarish even when both characters are confined to the same space.) I got into a discussion earlier this year on Usenet regarding this, and ended up proposing the following rule: "Allies may choose to move simultaneously. In order to do so, the character with the higher initiative count must delay their turn to the lowest initiative count among the characters moving simultaneously. The allies may choose to resolve their other actions either before or after the simultaneous move, but they must all make the same choice. If a character is allowed to move both before and after another action (for example, by using the Spring Attack feat), they may resolve that action during the simultaneous move. Characters may not move simultaneously as part of a full action unless all the characters are taking the same full action (such as a Charge). If any character is interrupted during the course of a simultaneous move, all characters making the move are interrupted. Characters moving simultaneously move the same distance at the same time, regardless of differences in their speeds (although characters with larger speeds may complete the remainder of their move after their slower allies have reached the end of their movement). In order to move simultaneously, characters must be able to communicate with each other in some way (verbally, mentally, or visually). After moving simultaneously, a character's initiative result becomes the initiative count on which they moved simultaneously." This rule allows simultaneous movement, but not simultaneous actions (with a handful of specific exceptions). Simultaneous actions can cause a plethora of complex interactions which become impossible to handle by any general rule (this is why we use an abstraction of discrete action in the first place). Handling the simultaneous movement through a kludge where everyone moves 5' at a time (despite different movement speeds) is, self-admittedly, a kludge. But it simplifies things considerably. As an optional rule, you might consider still allowing modifiers from hampered movement and running to effect simultaneous movement. These are easy to implement in comparison to ratios between different character speeds. Thus, a character running would travel 10 feet for every 5 feet traveled by a non-running ally. A character suffering a x2 hampered movement would only 5 feet for every 10 feet traveled by a non-hampered ally. (Unfortunately, a character running at x3 still creates problems. I'd still recommend allowing them to move 10 for every 5 without increasing the total distance they can move.) Of course, you can also implement full speed ratios if you'd like. The easiest way would be to construct a table. What was the question? Ah, yes. By RAW? No, you can't do it. Justin Alexander http://www.thealexandrian.net
Marcus Majarra 07-06-07, 02:39 PM	There exists at least one instance of simultaneous actions within the RAW: mounted combat. The mount acts as directed on the rider's initiative count. Although I don't see it as much as being perfectly simultaneous, I view it as being a coordinated action. Mounted combat serves as a good model for coordinated actions. The example of the two characters pulling on opposite ends of the rope and running could simply be the equivalent of one character (secondary) acting on the other's (primary) initiative count as directd by this character (primary), all within the limits of the actions available to each character. Also, it's interesting to notice that Secrets of Xen'drik introduced a new kind of trap: the encounter trap. These traps have many of the typical characteristics of usual traps (with triggers, find and disarm mechanisms, CRs, and so on), but they also have an initiative count (and can even surprise characters) on which their effects take place. This kind of trap makes the scenario you presented possible.
pedro2112 01-07-08, 01:52 AM	It's possible for both to flank with only one next to the enemy after attacks: Assuming both rogues act before the opponent does, Rogue 1 takes a move action to go in a square adjacent to the opponent and readies an attack to be launched when Rogue 2 flanks with him. Rogue 2 uses Spring Attack to move into flanking position (allowing Rogue 1 to sneak attack with the readied action), sneak attacks, and moves away. This is a pretty much rinse-and-repeat tactic, albeit the rogues can mitigate the risk by alternating turns to stick next to the opponent. Query: Can one "ready" an action after making a move action in one's turn? If not, then one cannot do what you describe above. I had always thought that in lieu of one's turn, one can ready an action. I never knew that one could start one's turn by perfoming a move action, and then decide to ready the 'standard action' portion of one's move.
Marcus Majarra 01-07-08, 03:35 AM	Whoa. Talk about reviving old threads. My last response was six months ago to the date. In any case, it's perfectly possible to ready an action after taking a move action. If you'll look in the rulebooks, you'll notice that readying an action is a standard action, regardless of the action you're readying (which can be a free, move, or standard action). As such, you can ready an action at any time you'd be entitled to a standard action.
Finarin Panjoro 01-08-08, 02:19 PM	Keep in mind that while you can move and then ready an action you cannot ready a 5 foot step with that action since you already moved. You could ready another move action, but there's no way to ready any sort of move and attack combination at this point (ranged attacks and spells are your best bet here). Also the DMG specifically allows for "ad hoc simultaneity" imposed by the DM at appropriate times. The examples mentioned above (the clothesline rope maneuver, party panicked fleeing into a trap, etc) are all examples where the DM should impose simultaneity.
pedro2112 01-10-08, 01:27 AM	Whoa. Talk about reviving old threads. My last response was six months ago to the date. Yes, I've got a lot of catching up to do. In any event, thanks for the explanation. It was very helpful.