Can you react in combat without first getting ready to react? If so, what's the advantage of getting ready? I can't find a clear answer in the 5e basic rules. Thx.
Reactions are triggered by certian situations. When the trigger is met you can do it usually as a bonus/extra action.
When you ready an action its almost like makeing your own trigger and reaction.
for example ...orcs are beating on the door what do you do?
"I ready my bow, when the door fly's open I will fire at the first orc I see"
so now when the door buckles you can take a shot...
if you have a reaction and are in combat and it satisfy's the trigger and can be used in combat you have no need to ready for it...your always looking for the trigger, becuase your character is awesome 
.
TheTrueNorseLord wrote:
galani wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
Well literal or not there are down falls...what if the fighter breaches the door to strike at something then comes back in...I don't want to shoot him :D. Yes my example was specific, maybe to specific but it still answered the question
None of the answers completely answer the original question;
A reaction is something you can do in between each of your turns that has a sepcific trigger that triggers them.
eg;
Opportinuty attack: Triggers when an enemy leaves your reach.
Protection Fighting Style: Triggers when an enemy attacks an ally that is adjacent to you (if you are holding a shield)
Shield spell: Triggers when you are hit or the target of a Magic Missile spell.
A Ready Action creates a specific type of reaction that lets you do any action or a move as a reaction with a trigger that you define when it is not your turn. You basically 'give up' your action on your turn in order to do it when the condition is met later in the round.
eg;
"If an enemy moves towards me I'll move away!" (You normally can't move when it's not your turn, but readying your action to do so allows you to)
"If that enemy in the plate mail moves adjacent to me I'll cast shocking grasp" (You normally can't cast shocking grasp as a reaction, but you are readying yourself to do so)
"When that enemy comes out of hiding to shoot, I'll fire my bow at him!" (The enemy was hiding on your turn and was coming out, attacking, and rehiding as a bonus action. The only time you might get a clear shot is if you ready to attack him on his turn.)
etc.
Shivafang has it right. As for the main advantage of it, as opposed to simply taking the action immediately, well it depends on the situation. One example is hitting an enemy that keeps hiding/moving behind cover as he mentions above.
In my case, I use the ready action a LOT on my rogue, since sneak attack activates when an opponent is within 5ft of a non-incapacitated ally. As such, when no enemies are within 5ft and I don't have advantage, I gain significantly more damage by stipulating "I attack the first monster to get within striking distance of a party member" as a reaction, than I would from just attacking normally.
Another easily foreseeable situation is when casting an AOE as a mage. If one of your allies is within the blast range, you'll probably want to use ready to set up a reaction rather than attacking at once. I.e. I cast fireball into the center of the enemies once my party member moves out of range.
Essentially, in normal combat it's better not to use ready and take a normal action, since it leaves your reaction ready for opportunity attacks or any other reaction actions you may possess. However, in certain circumstances such as those above it is FAR better to set up a ready action.
TheCriticalFail wrote:
What is interesting about reactions in 5e is that they sometimes are true interrupts (like the Shield spell) and sometimes they are "reactions" which occur immediately after the triggering event, eg polearm master or whatever the feat is, when they come within 5' of you, you get an attack as a reaction, after he moves but before he attacks.
Does the Ready Action indicate whether the action you take due to the trigger happens as a true interrupt, or as a "reaction"..?
edit: deleted my example, it invovled stealth, too complicated!
shivafang wrote:
nightwalker450 wrote:
nightwalker450 wrote:
My question concerning Ready Action is how specific do I have to determine the trigger?
I am a rogue and let's say expect something behind a door coming near. What I mostly do is saying "I shoot my bow, if it is an enemy opening it." or "...if I spot an enemy." With that I want to make sure not to shoot the missed villager, we are searching for or my companion that may have taken the other way around for example.
But what happens is that my DM often answers: "Describe it more detailed. You can't say 'enemy'. Describe the person you are shooting at or shoot at anything that comes through the door."
How can I? Okay, in some cases, maybe if fighting cultists all the time there is a fair chance to describe detailly what I am shooting at. But otherwise I feel that it's absolutely unfair/impossible to handle it the way my DM wants me to.
How do you think about it?
Peter
p-touch wrote:
p-touch wrote:
My guess is your DM is being more demanding than necessary. The PHB doesn't imply you need to be very precise.
But.... if I wanted to give your DM the benefit of the doubt..... he may be trying to determine how you will know when the trigger is met.
IOW, you state "I shoot the first enemy that comes through the door" Just *how* do you determine if the next person is an enemy or not? Are you looking for cultist robes? Or a Kobold? Or someone in armor? What would you do if someone walked through just wearing regular clothes? Or maybe some robes?
I don't think you should have to narrow it down to "I shoot the next kobold", and thereby ignore the cultist... but maybe if you give your PCs rationale that will be enough.
"We have been fighting cultists, mercenaries, kobolds and giant lizards; I suspect there may be other monsters here also. I will shoot anyone I believe is an enemy, but not anyone that looks harmless or like a captured peasant" That *may* work....
I would think, however, that was all assumed by "I shoot the next enemy"... and if someone in robes walked in I would either ask you to quickly make a decision, or force a perception check on you. IOW, the more vague your trigger, the more likely you may make a mistake. (But as Noctaem mentioned, just trying to screw you over isn't cool.)
When to activate the reaction is up to the player when the trigger is met. Just because the trigger happens, doesn't mean you MUST take your reaction. That's why it's completely pointless and pedantic to force the player to go into detail about the trigger itself. I attack the first enemy who comes through the door, ok "a man dressed in robes comes through, he has a dagger in hand and an angry look on his face. What do you do?" From that the player decides, "yes I use my reaction and attack the robed man" or "no I don't use my reaction". A generous DM (read most DM's) could go into more detail for the player's benefit. "A man in the same kind of robes as the cultists you've seen before enters the doorway. A dagger is in his raised hand as he moves through, he screams 'Tiamat shall devour your soul!' as soon as he sees you. What do you do?" The DM is the window into the game that players use to make decisions. It's a cooperative game, the players are not against the DM or vice versa, working together to achieve fun is the goal.
Again talk to your DM.
Thanks for all your answers! All your thoughts are what I had in mind as well! And I feel confirmed.
Noctaem wrote:
galani wrote:
durntaur wrote:
p-touch wrote:
You automatically are allowed one action on your turn. You can use that to Ready an action that will trigger as a Reaction once certain conditions are met.
So you could Move, then use the Cast a Spell action as your bonus action (assuming the correct spell), and you use your automatically allowed action to Ready the Hide action, or the Help action, or the Attack action, etc.
As a DM I may require an INT check to determine if your character could tell the difference! Easy DC 10 but makes you think about dump stats...
Coredump00 wrote:
lkwpeter wrote:
Kalani wrote:
lkwpeter wrote:
Even on your turn, the Dash Action is not movement. The Dash Action doubles your allowed movement.
You start the turn with a 30' movement
So you do *not* Move 30' then Dash 30'
You Move 30', use the Dash Action (so now your allowed movement is 60'), them move again another 30'
It roughly equates to giving you two options 1) Move up to 30' and take an action, or 2) Move up to 60'
Its a nit-picky difference, but it occasionally makes a difference.
To answer your question, you could Move 30', the Ready an action to move... and when it triggers, you could move up to another 30'. (Some DMs may require you to commit to a movement direction and distance when you ready the action....)
From the (basic free) rules:
When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger
Kalani wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Because you'd still be stacking movement abilities. And I would guess that someone who doesn't like stacking movement abilities feels that way because there ought to be a cap to how fast you can move without magical assistance.
Anyway, nothing says the ready has to happen after your turn. I could just say, "I ready to move as soon as I say 'boo'," and then say 'boo' on my turn. So if you're going to let that work, you might as well just let me use my action to dash again.
15 mph (4-minute mile) = 132'/round
Why would magical assistance be required to achieve a speed within human capability?
jonathonhawke wrote:
90' /round is the equivalent speed to running the 50 yard dash in 10 seconds. You don't have to be Usain Bolt for that (the expectation in my 7th grade PE class was 7.7 seconds).
It was a joke lol
Hm.
So you can ready an action to move out of the way if someone draws an arrow or starts casting a spell, is that correct?
Like if I readied an action to run behind full cover or something?
Oraibi wrote:
Does Ready Action count until the end of the round or until your next turn?
lkwpeter wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
You also have to keep in mind that the times we are quoting are when we are 100% totally unencumbered. Adventurers are carrying 20-100lbs of gear as well, which must be factored into the equation. Being able to run 30 feet in 6seconds with all that gear is impressive enough, especially when you consider that they can make multiple 90 degree turns, and can do so while avoiding being hit by weapons.
Moving 90 ft/round doesn't bother me too much, though I'd say it's pretty fast for the situation. 120 ft/round would probably be over the edge.
What I don't really like is that rogues and monks can do it but not anyone else. Monks are fine, they are kind of supernatural anyway. But rogues? I just don't want to picture Cunning Action as meaning you are a super fast runner, I think it means you can do things quickly and multitask well. So personally, I would be happy to restrict a rogue to using dash once per round, and I wouldn't have a problem making that a general rule.
But that is absolutely house rule territory. I don't see any solid rules argument against it.
jaelis wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
curiousdragon wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
curiousdragon wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
How to catch up with a dog running around you: stop spinning. Readied action to catch the dog as it comes back around. But according to you, because the dog's initiative is higher, I somehow never think to do that. I just have to keep spinning.
Macv12 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
1) The caster still casts 1 spell each turn, at exactly the same rate as normal. They just hold one in their hand for a second or two to see if the enemy heals before throwing it. And they can't ready a spell again on the second turn, because they already cast a spell, so it works exactly once. You have a strange definition of "twice as fast."
2) This is only relevant in the case of a caster delaying a spell until after an enemy acts, then immediately casting another spell next turn, where these two castings kill the healer, but otherwise would be counteracted by the healer's healing between them, which gives them one more round of being alive. Extremely niche; minuscule prevention of abuse (assuming it is even abuse), and for that, you trainwreck the Ready action for everyone else.
3) If the caster rolls better initiative than the enemy, they can still delay until after their turns. So in return for making Ready useless for half the combatants, you get...nothing! Good fix.
Macv12 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
If using standard initiative, its my opinion a round should be considered from beginning of creature's turn to start of creatures turn.
If use initiative variant like speed factor (where new initiative is rerolled each round) then a round would be from highest initiative to lowest initiative. So if you are in the camp that says there is universal round and ready action has to be used that round, maybe you should consider playing with this initiative variant (DMG page 270-271). With this option all characters declare their actions before round begins and initiative is rolled.
paulstrait wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Greenstone.Walker wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Edit: redacted until I calm down after work. Please enjoy your day
Coredump00 wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Had the Ready Actions intent been to create a reaction that is usable up to your next turn, the text could have said that, just as many spells do. But it does not. Also what it doesn't say is that it has a duration of 1 full round. It simply says it allows you to act later in the round. And rounds are defined as ending when the last combatant takes its turn.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
So basically bloodscythe you're saying that if I end up with initiative lower than another creature, I can NEVER use my readied action to do something at the start of that creature's turn because the round will end and a new one will begin before that's possible? IE:
Round 1.
Paul goes first. Attacks Bill.
Bill goes second, can't immediately attack Paul and instead decides to ready an attack for when Paul gets into range.
Round 1 ends. Bill loses his readied action.
Round 2 start.
Paul goes first again, Attack bill.
Bill goes second, readies an attack for when paul...
And so on. Basically you're creating a closed loop that makes it impossible for creatures with lower initiative to ready actions and use them against creatures with higher initiative. You could never say ready an action to strike when a flying giant bat uses a flyby attack, where they move + attack + move away in the same turn. You could also never ready a disarm action to use vs an opponent running toward you with high init.. You could never ready to dump the contents of a potion of healing into the mouth of a downed ally should he fail his death saving throw, or to down it yourself in case you need an effect to survive an attack or trap.. I mean that basically creates a slew of problems within the game.
Nevermind every other reason I can think of. Please explain to me how this one alone makes any sense and why you believe it should work this way.
Noctaem wrote:
Initiative has nothing to do with reaction times. Rounds last 6 seconds, everything done within the round is basically simultaneous within those 6 seconds. There could be 2 creatures or 100 in the initiative, everyone acts within those 6 seconds. Your argument is tainted by your perception of realism. Readied Actions in the game are based off triggers. You regain the use of your reaction action at the start of your turn. It makes literally no sense that you would split the iniative and say that anyone in a higher initiative spot is completely immune to reactions by lower initiative creatures. Basically, the person who goes first according to you is completely immune to readied actions from EVERYONE ELSE in the initiative order. You justify this by claiming that it's because what? Everyone reacts to what the first person does?
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
You might be quoting the rules text, that's debatable, but you're certainly not quoting intent. Rather I think your distorting the text based on your personal bias and need for realism. You're in fact having this conversation in two different threads and multiple people are very easily disproving everything you're saying.
As for previous discussions between us, I think you're just very very often wrong when it comes to your statements and people have to correct you very often. You're then very stubborn, like now, and you either never admit being wrong regardless of any evidence presented to you or you change your argument over time until it seems you've always agreed with those your discussing with.
How about you go ask Crawford what he thinks?
Noctaem wrote:
I don't think you have any ground to claim what you're saying is RAW and I further think you know that. You're just throwing out terms like RAW to try to create a solid base for the argument you're presenting. Quoting a rule while changing it's meaning does not mean you're argument is RAW.
How about you ask Crawford on twitter instead and see what he thinks?
"Oh. Man.
I see Joe walking toward me. I hate that guy. The moment he crosses that doorway, I'm gonna slam the door in his face. It's gonna be AWESOME!!
Here he comes. Oh boy oh boy, I can't wait. Just 1 more step.
Oh wait. I forgot I'm not psychic. An arbitrary 6 seconds just passed and I inexplicably can't react to him walking through the doorway anymore.
Ugh, there he goes. Walking through the door like he's king of the hallway.
Darn it, Joe! You win this round!"
-Realism
Yumeii wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Yumeii wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yumeii wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
Yumeii wrote:
You should just ask Jeremy Crawford on twitter instead.
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Well if you really want to argue semantics about the "rules as written" and completely ignore intent, sense, and usability, then alright. Let's play with the round.
A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in the battle takes a turn. The order of turns is determined at the beginning of a combat encounter, when everyone rolls initiative. Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other.
Yumeii wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yumeii wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yumeii wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yumeii wrote:
Yumeii wrote:
Everything I've stated was a direct definition of what was stated in the PHB. Your case has been made from extrapolations and your own added words, which since you wanted to argue RAW, means that you aren't making a case at all.
These rounds make perfect sense and the end of rounds all work out. Perhaps you are refusing to see or admit it? I notice your argument started breaking down the instant I started backing myself up with the PHB.
In any case, let's break it down. We'll start with definitions.
The Rules
PHB page 189
A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in the battle takes a turn. The order of turns is determined at the beginning of a combat encounter, when everyone rolls initiative. Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other.
Orethalion wrote:
Yumeii wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yumeii wrote:
Bloodscythe is way over thinking this. Rounds are cyclical. The the character with the highest initiative starts first, but after his turn is over his initiative is the last in the order. It is a big circle.
The whole point of these rules is that they be human readable. The "later in the round" phrase is just that, a phrase. Don't nitpick.
Consider which of these ideas causes the most problems? Whatever it is the other interpretation is probably the correct one. Or another thing to consider. If 99% of gamers are playing it where a Readied action can continue all the way till the start of their next turn, that is probably the right way to do it. It is easy and doesn't unfairly hinder someone that rolled low for their initiative.
Yumeii wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I have played many games and discovered later that we played with some of the rules incorrectly. Doesn't mean we didn't still have fun. So you can still have fun playing D&D and play "wrong" by the rules. But you played it "right" in that you had fun with it. So they are not mutually exclusive.
To support Yumeii somewhat. There are plenty of examples of things that last "one round" but start on a character's turn and end at the beginning or end of their turn. You would have us believe that rounds actually have a definite end point after the person with the lowest initiative goes, but it only matters for Readied actions and for nothing else in the game. This definition exists solely for the purpose of preventing someone with a low initiative roll of getting a Readied action off. Really?
Edit: Meant to quote Orethalion. So this was in response to his post.
LordTwig wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Yumeii wrote:
If you want further support from the PHB, let's take a look at spells with "1 round" duration, shall we?
According to your argument, if a spell lasts 1 round, once the person with lowest initiative takes his/her turn, the round is over and the spell ends. Prepared to be lawyered.
Blade Ward
Duration: 1 round
...Until the end of your next turn, you have resistance against...
Chill Touch
Duration: 1 round
...target takes 1d8 necrotic damage, and it can't regain hit points until the start of your next turn. ...
Color Spray
Duration: 1 round
...each creature affected by this spell is blinded until the spell ends.
If the target is higher initiative than you, this makes Color Spray useless according to your round definition.
LordTwig wrote:
Yumeii wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yumeii wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yumeii wrote:
Yumeii wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yumeii wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion. Just to be clear...
Color Spray does NOT blind you if you have a higher initative than the person that cast the spell, correct?
Edit: Sorry. It does not blind anyone if the caster goes last in the round. Right?
Yumeii wrote:
LordTwig wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
The only way "simultaneous" rounds would be relevant is in the same way that simultaneous instances of "12 years" are in effect when you bottle multiple batches of alcohol at different times. You don't measure and track a new round every turn, just when you need one.
So the first round starts with the first turn.
On the second round, someone casts Color Spray, which is in effect for 1 round (as measured from this turn).
On the third turn, someone attacks. Don't care.
On the fourth turn, someone readied an attack to use later in the round (as measured from this turn).
The round (as measured from the first turn) ends, but no one was measuring because nothing keyed off it.
The round (as measured from turn two) ends when the caster's turn comes up again. Color Spray ends.
The round (as measured from turn four) ends when the ready-er's turn come up again. If they didn't take a reaction, it's lost.
It's not hard. Perfectly intuitive, we do it every time we set a timer. You just measure from one turn to the next instance of that turn. There's no bookkeeping nightmare, it doesn't mess with the rules, it's not nonsensical. It just makes absolute total complete perfect sense! 
Also, about spell durations. You could imagine a spell with a duration of "1 day," that says that it ends the next time the sun goes down. The spell will never actually last 24 hours, but it will last for an undetermined time up to a maximum of 24 hours, and terminate early at some point in that duration when the trigger occurs. Or, it could say 24 hours, and "until the same time tomorrow as when you cast this spell today."
If a round is a unit of time, that's what the duration of "1 round" translates to. The fact that they call that a "duration," in the same context that "1 minute" or "1 day" are durations, is telling of what it's intended to represent. If a round is the turn-order block, then that duration is nonsensical. "Until the target's next turn" could be the very next turn in the round, or it could be the last turn in the current round, or it could be the turn right before yours in the next round (so it lasted two rounds). It would be a meaningless measurement if that were the ONLY definition of "round."
It's funny. When a topic is 40 or more posts longer when I check it the next day, I always know what it's about. Nothing like semantics to set the internet on fire. I wonder if it's because dictionaries are so available that anyone can consider themselves experts on what stuff means.
Yumeii wrote:
Yumeii wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
So in order to invent support for your argument you're going to tell us that there's multiple definitions for the word round in 5e and that you get to enforce which definition is used arbitrarily even though there's no such explained difference between the various things that use the word "round". And you're going to use the word "the" as your ace in the whole to prove this without doubt. Mkk. This is obviously a pointless discussion.
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Thanks for your post Macv12! It makes me happy to see posters like you.
+1
Perhaps this has been all too abstract. You're thinking of a "round" as something you've never encountered before and you're trying to figure out how its definition works within this strange, new world of D&D. Let us instead look upon a humble little fellow that's been with us in the "real" world for a while now: the hour.
An hour represents a unit of time.
For our purposes, it completes when each participating minute completes a turn (of which there are 60).
Each minute follows an order that never changes: 0-59 (or 1-60 depending on how you want to count it). This is equivalent to initiative order.
Orethalion, according to you, we only have 1 way to measure an hour.
1:00-2:00 (technically 1:00-1:59:59 but let's not force that issue, alright?)
2:00-3:00
And so forth. This is equivalent to Round 1, Round 2, etc.
This is our standard measurement of the hour. No problems here.
However, do you agree that 1:17-2:17 is also an hour?
How about 1:30-2:30?
Remember, the order is 0-59 (or 1-60) and never changes.
By your logic, these are not hours.
Do you consider these examples an hour? Of course you do.
As I stated before, the only important aspect of the initiative order is the sequence. Going BCA does not break the looping sequence of ABCABCABC, just as 1:30-2:30 does not break the sequence from 0, 1, 2, ... 58, 59, 0, 1.
If, on the other hand, you want to be stubborn and insist that those are not hours... then we have nothing further to discuss.
We don't measure time by keeping track of an hour every minute, just as we don't measure D&D rounds by keeping track of 1294624 simultaneous rounds (Again, I only used the simultaneous rounds to illustrate a point. Not to suggest a method of combat bookkeeping). When you say something lasts for a minute or an hour, when do you consider the starting point? It's at the moment you said it. You don't say "I'll be there in an hour, starting 17 minutes ago." Likewise, when something lasts for a round, the starting point is at the moment the effect starts. AKA. the turn of the person who cast the spell / used the ability / whatever.
Now the Ready Action states that it allows you to "act later in the round" and you have been on record stating that the round refers to the current one. As established, there is no official count of rounds. It is merely a measurement of time. The current round is therefore the one that is most relevent to the situation, thus defaulting to the round started by the individual's turn.
Macv12 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Yumeii wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
Well, this thread can now end!!! Jeremy has spoken.
Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford Apr 18
@JeremySoard: "Readied Action: has to trigger before the round ends or before the start of your next turn?" Before your next turn
Yumeii wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Who's full of flaw now?!
(I'm totally stealing that phrase btw 
)
And thanks for the compliment that incited that response, Noctaem. Though it was built on Yumeii's excellent lawyergasm. Good game everyone, good game. We went out there, we gave 110%, you know, I really think we brought all our training to bear, we fought hard. It was a good game. Next time we're just gonna fight harder, you know. Give 110% .
(...can you tell how relieved I am not to trouble myself writing that long-ass response post? 
)
Macv12 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote: