Readied Spells and Attacks?

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

Coolossus2123

Aug 26, 2015 2:47:52

So almost the exact wording of this question was part of another thread I found once, and I copied down the different possible answers to this down, and edited them a bit, to later check back on and ask more details about it. I've since been very busy, and completely forgot what thread this was asked in, and for some reason didn't copy down the link. But here: For spells that you get to pick your target for, must you select the target when readying it as part of the trigger i.e when the first creature to walk through the door comes, my spell attacks him. Or is it that once the trigger occurs, you get to pick your target? The latter seems more likely. For example: The caster readies Hold Person to trigger when their ally opens a door.
•    Door gets opened.
•    Does the caster:
•    A) Cast Hold Person on the fighter because they were the creature that triggered the reaction?
•    B) Cast Hold Person on the opening door since it is also part of the trigger? (admittedly not a valid target, since a door is not a person)
•    C) Pick a target within range of the spell when they release the spell?  There is now a clear path to a guard beyond the door and the guard is in range.  Is it not a valid target?
•    D) Other? If so please specify?

And either way, how does a spell like magic missile or eldritch blast work when readied? For instance, when the trigger occurs for Magic Missile, does this mean that all missiles must hit the same target? Or does it mean that once the trigger occurs, at that point you get to specify who the targets are? 

Same questions as everything above goes for readying an attack or other that lets you target one or multiple targets, how is it done?


#2

El_Condoro

Aug 26, 2015 3:03:03

The caster gets to cast their (1 action) readied spell when the trigger occurs just as they normally would. 

 

Your example, when the door is opened by the ally:

  • multiple targets - choose one of them for a targeted spell, or choose more than one for a spell like magic missile. 
  • one target - hit it or, if it's a kobold and the caster has a high level spell readied to affect a dragon, not cast at all (and not lose the slot)
  • no target - not cast (but do not lose the slot)
#3

Noctaem

Aug 26, 2015 6:08:12

Coolossus2123 wrote:
#4

Cooperjera

Aug 26, 2015 10:21:09

To add some clarification; although I'm away from my books, I recall that the player gets to make a choice when the trigger of the readied action occurs.  Do they perform the action or do they move?  Therefore, a readied action of a spell to attack the first creature that comes through a door may result in the character not casting the spell, but instead moving.  The movement could be zero feet.

#5

Noctaem

Aug 26, 2015 10:24:23

Cooperjera wrote:
#6

jaelis

Aug 26, 2015 10:40:22

Cooperjera wrote:
#7

Noctaem

Aug 26, 2015 11:00:41

jaelis wrote:
#8

jaelis

Aug 26, 2015 13:16:02

But movement is not an action. So they have to list it as a separate option.

(Reply to #8)

jonathonhawke

jaelis wrote:
#10

strider13x

Aug 26, 2015 16:43:49

dash is the action being taken in that example.

#11

jaelis

Aug 26, 2015 17:23:18

You don't actually move as part of the dash action, it just increases your speed for the turn.

#12

Slagger_the_Chuul

Aug 26, 2015 22:30:02

Noctaem wrote:
#13

Danny_Montanny

Aug 27, 2015 8:16:12

Ready needs specifics if you ask me. Otherwise it doesn't work. Hold Person needs a target, so I think a target must be declared when the spell is cast. If it's "someone inside the room", that's fine. If you can target multiple creatures, tell the DM what ones will be targeted when you use your reaction. If you say to me, "if this thing happens, I'll cast Magic Missile." I'll reply with, "at who?"

 

Regardless, it seems to me your main example falls under the big argument of, can you use the Ready action outside of "combat"? Chances are in the situation you're describing, there'll be a lot more questions involved. Do you even know if there's a target for the spell on the other side of the door? Can't it just be covered by, "I'm gonna cast Hold Person if there's someone on the other side of the door after Gronk opens it." Why does it have to be the Ready action? Are you already in initiative and 6 second intervals just to open a door?

 

If you truly are using a Ready action, work it out with your DM. That's what they're for. Just remember, if you want to do a thing, simply state your goal and approach. If you know what those two things are, the rest will work itself out.

#14

Noctaem

Aug 27, 2015 8:45:29

Danny_Montanny wrote:
#15

jaelis

Aug 27, 2015 8:55:09

I think the details of how specific your trigger needs to be are up to the DM, and probably depends on the situation for most DMs.

#16

Noctaem

Aug 27, 2015 9:05:52

jaelis wrote:
#17

Danny_Montanny

Aug 27, 2015 9:43:52

The mechanics of the game are there to be used as a tool to help adjudicate the narrative. Not the other way around... So if there isn't enough information from the narrative, then it's hard to use the rules in a meaningful way. 

 

No one's saying you have to say, "the next hobgoblin". I even said, "someone inside the room" being ok with me.

 

In all these hypothetical situations, the real question you should be asking is, "does the situation even call for the Ready action mechanic?" Without more info on the situation, it's hard to answer, but I'm willing to bet most of the time the answer is, "no."

#18

Bloodscythe

Aug 27, 2015 12:49:54

heyo... it's my example he's quoting so I guess I should comment on it.

 

The way I rule, based on how I read the rules, is as follows.

 

First, on your turn, you use your action to Ready a spell.  The spell is cast on your turn, using the Ready Action, and is held.  This establishes a usable reaction later in the round, and you determine the trigger of this reaction.

 

Next, on your turn, or on another creature's turn, but before the start of your next turn, if the reaction is triggered, you release the spell.

Upon releasing Hold Person, you determine the target of the spell, per the description of the spell effect.  "Choose a humanoid you can see within range."

 

So in my example above, I resolve it as such:

Caster readies Hold Person, and sets the trigger as "the fighter opens the door".  The spell has no effect yet, so you don't "Choose a humanoid you can see within range."

The door gets opened.  This may reveal new possible targets, since your line of sight is changed.  The trigger occurs, so now you choose if you want to use your reaction.

If you do use your reaction, you release the spell, and now you "Choose a humanoid you can see within range.", even if this target is a target that was previously concealed behind a closed door.

 

Same would be true for magic missile, or any other spell.  A spell tells you to target as part of the description of its effect.  Until the spell is being released, you don't do anything from the description of the spell effect, since a spell being held has no effect.

 

What does a magic missile do?  The text listed as the description of the spell effect.  When does it do it?  When you release the spell... not when you cast the spell.  The spell is released when you use your reaction, not when you take the Ready action.

 

And triggers are just something you can perceive.. a Readied spell's trigger and a readied spell's target are unrelated.  They can be the same thing, but they aren't required to be the same thing.  A spell may only be able to target objects, but you can perceive creatures and can set a trigger based on a creature.  And vise versa.

#19

Danny_Montanny

Aug 27, 2015 13:11:22

What's the big deal in asking for some clarification on a player's goal and approach? "Cast Hold Person when the door opens" doesn't have a goal, it's all approach. It's a means to an end  without an end. It's like saying, "I swing my sword when the door opens" and leaving it at that. "Cast Hold Person on an enemy in the next room when the door opens" states it's goal and approach clearly. You should never assume on a what a player wants to do, that's why I make my players state it clearly so there is no ambiguity. You may not see any difference in it, but I do.

#20

Bloodscythe

Aug 27, 2015 13:13:20

As far as moving instead of casting as your reaction, I don't read the rules as allowing that...

 

If you take the Ready Action, you set a trigger, then you either pick an action you'd like to perform OR you pick to move.  Then if the trigger occurs, you do either an action or move, depending on what you chose.

 

So if you ready a spell, you're already choosing to use your reaction to Cast A Spell.. the action is chosen for you.  You can't choose to move in addition to the Cast A Spell action.

 

And when the trigger occurs, you can't decide to change your selection... your only options are to use your reaction to Cast A Spell, or ignore the trigger.

(Reply to #19)

Bloodscythe

Danny_Montanny wrote:
#22

Noctaem

Aug 27, 2015 13:28:43

Bloodscythe wrote:
#23

Bloodscythe

Aug 27, 2015 13:35:06

If you ready Magic Missile:

On your turn, you take the Ready Action, and cast magic missile.  You concentrate to hold the spell until a trigger occurs.  You set a trigger.  "The fighter opens the door."

On the fighter's turn, they open the door.  The trigger occurs so now you may either use your reaction to release Magic Missile or ignore the trigger.  Let's assume you release the spell.

Now you consult the description of the spell's effect:

You create three glowing darts of magical force. Each

dart hits a creature of your choice that you can see within

range. A dart deals 1d4 + 1 force damage to its target.

The darts all strike simultaneously, and you can direct

them to hit one creature or several.

 

The "Each dart hits a creature of your choice" is something you choose once you're releasing the spell.  Creatures you can see within range (120 ft) at the moment of the trigger are all valid targets.  And since the door is now open, "creatures you can see within range" may now include creatures you couldn't have targeted when you cast the spell on your turn.  And nowhere in the description does it say that each dart has to hit the same creature..  Quite the opposite.  You get to pick the target for each dart independently of the choice you made for the other darts.

 

The same is true for Eldritch Blast.  Only when releasing the spell (after the trigger), do you consult the description of the spell's effect which says you make crackling beams of energy that you use to make ranged spell attacks, which use the rules for Making An Attack, so releasing the spell enables you to make a number of attacks, and for each of these attacks, you:

Step 1: Choose a target

Step 2: determine modifiers

Step 3: resolve the attack

#24

Noctaem

Aug 27, 2015 13:47:49

Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #21)

Danny_Montanny

Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #25)

Bloodscythe

Danny_Montanny wrote:
(Reply to #14)

Coredump00

Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #23)

Coredump00

Bloodscythe wrote:
#29

Slagger_the_Chuul

Aug 28, 2015 3:39:59

Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #28)

Bloodscythe

Coredump00 wrote:
#31

Danny_Montanny

Aug 28, 2015 7:17:21

I have never once had a player say, "I cast Hold Person, but I won't tell you who it's on until I know that I actually cast the spell." They just say, "I cast Hold Person on X." Trying to fix a problem that doesn't even exist is just ridiculous. What's gonna stop them from casting the spell? Some other Mage casting Counterspell? Cause that happens so friggin much that you have to micro manage how spells work? Just cast a flippin spell! You're making mountains out of molehills. "I want to do a thing, and this is how I do it" is what I need to hear from my players. "Casting Hold Person" or "Ready Hold Person" doesn't fulfill that entire need in my book.

(Reply to #31)

Bloodscythe

Danny_Montanny wrote:
(Reply to #32)

Danny_Montanny

Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #33)

Bloodscythe

Danny_Montanny wrote:
#35

Danny_Montanny

Aug 28, 2015 8:08:22

To me, the conversation the only thing that counts. The rules are tools I use, they don't dictate anything. Ever.

(Reply to #35)

Bloodscythe

Danny_Montanny wrote:
(Reply to #30)

Coredump00

Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #32)

Coredump00

Bloodscythe wrote:
#39

Noctaem

Aug 28, 2015 11:03:21

Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #37)

Bloodscythe

Coredump00 wrote:
#41

Noctaem

Aug 28, 2015 11:43:48

Bloodscythe wrote:
#42

Danny_Montanny

Aug 28, 2015 11:48:34

Ok. Actually playing this game doesn't exist in some binary state where rules can dictate every outcome. They can't possibly write it that way. It's not how it's set up, and it damn sure isn't how it goes down when you play the game. Instead, you get a framework to build your game upon. Only once context is established can you fully adjudicate the game.

 

"I Ready Hold Person and cast it when the door opens."

"Ok, who're you trying to cast the spell on?"

"The rules don't say I have to state that."

"I know, but just so I know what you're trying to accomplish."

"I can't tell you a target, because the rules say I can't choose a target until I release my spell."

"So that's it, the door opens, you release your spell?"

"Yep."

"Uh... Ok. The door opens, and you don't immediately see anyone."

"But why? There should've been someone standing there! I wanted to cast it on the first guy coming through the door!"

"Should there have been? Maybe you could've communicated the context of you were looking for better when I asked."

 

Seems to me that all that could be avoided by having a conversation and figuring out what the player's actual goal was before the door was opened.

(Reply to #41)

Bloodscythe

Noctaem wrote:
#44

Noctaem

Aug 28, 2015 12:17:59

Rules being very simple or in black and white as you chose to put it has never stopped coredump and the others who think like him before.  heh.  The fact that effects come into play after you successfully cast a spell and then gain the attacks that you get to make because of the effect should make it obvious that you can't pick targets before making the attacks.  The PHB is very clear and the spell is very clear yep.  All the spells work this way.  There's not even a single exception.

#45

Noctaem

Aug 28, 2015 12:27:13

He's trying to restrict the player by forcing him/her to specifically state the target the spell is being readied to target even though there's no legal target at the time.  He's trying to control play in order to stop the player from gaining benefits of readying the spell and having the freedom to target whoever he wants.  From what I've seen so far of Danny's posts, he just doesn't seem to like the ready action and the tactical options it offers.  So he's trying to restrict it.

(Reply to #42)

Bloodscythe

Danny_Montanny wrote:
(Reply to #45)

Danny_Montanny

Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #47)

Bloodscythe

Danny_Montanny wrote:
#49

Cascade.rpga

Aug 28, 2015 13:27:06

Isn't the intent of Readying to go first?

 

Essentially you precast the spell and then indicate the conditions to go first in initiative (i.e. immediately after the trigger)  - if the conditions change i.e. the target also readied a spell when the door opened...it just regressed into initiative between the two and the rest fall in.

 

What if the door was opened and there was another door? Do you lose the spell? It was precast and it seems that you can reset new conditions but it just takes another round (action) so that it will go off immediately following the next definied trigger.

 

The way I see it, you ready the spell (cast it), hold the charge. If you set some very specific conditions, it goes off immediately when they are triggered, if not, it delays (is held) until you make new very specific conditions on your next round where it follows the original rules.

 

I don't see why you couldn't get very creative;

 

for example; I precast hold person with the conditions that the next creature I attempt to swing at is the target of the spell.

My next turn, the spell is still held (w/ concentration). I move up, swing at the target, the spell goes off using my reaction, I gain advantage on the attack if the spell succeeds.

 

(Reply to #49)

Bloodscythe

Cascade.rpga wrote:
#51

Cascade.rpga

Aug 28, 2015 13:56:17

Bloodscythe wrote:
#52

Danny_Montanny

Aug 28, 2015 14:01:25

Exactly, the intent is to cast Hold Person... on a person. How is the DM trying to get the player to clarify their trigger, which should be tied to something that will actually utilize the spell, turn them into the bad guy?

 

Sure you don't have to clarify a trigger that will utilize your spell without question, but it seems dumb to do that. Assuming there will be a target for your readied spell on an ambiguous trigger, like "when the door opens" is completely unnecessary.

(Reply to #51)

Bloodscythe

Cascade.rpga wrote:
(Reply to #52)

Bloodscythe

Danny_Montanny wrote:
#55

Danny_Montanny

Aug 28, 2015 15:10:49

"I'll release my spell when I see a target to release it on after the door opens" seems like a much better trigger to me than "I realease my spell when the door opens." So, you know, I have a better chance of actually using the spell in question. But, whatever...

(Reply to #55)

Bloodscythe

Danny_Montanny wrote:
#57

Coredump00

Aug 28, 2015 15:25:29

Bloodscythe; lets try a different approach.

 

Casting Hold Person takes ' 1 action', so it takes some amount of time.  For sake of illustration, lets say it takes 3 seconds to cast.

 

DM Bob: You need to pick the target as you begin the spell

 

DM Ted: You need to pick the target at the end of the spell

 

 

Can you please present the rule that defines one of these right and one of these wrong?

 

 

 

As I see it, you keep contradicting yourself.

 

You have said that selecting the target is *part* of casting the spell, but you also claim that selecting a target happens *after* you cast the spell..... which one is correct?

 

 

The Ready Action says you 'cast the spell as normal'.... it does not say you "partially cast the spell".... if selecting a target is part of casting the spell... how do you assert that you cast the spell... but later on you select the target?

 

 

 

 

Finally.... you seem to be of the opinion that Spellcasting works by 'casting the spell' and *then* making any and all decisions about that spell.....  could you please quote the rule stating that those decisions are made *after* casting the spell?   What rule makes you assume that those decisions are not part of the casting of the spell?

 

 

#58

Danny_Montanny

Aug 28, 2015 15:28:11

So when my DM is leading me to spit out a more specific intent, I'm smart and trusting enough to know that what I'm trying to do probably isn't in my best interest. That they want me to succeed on what I'm trying to do, and not trying to be a dick. So I'll talk it out so we're both on the same page and I get to do something awesome.

(Reply to #57)

Bloodscythe

Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #58)

Bloodscythe

Danny_Montanny wrote:
#61

Bloodscythe

Aug 28, 2015 16:28:20

Coredump:  Do you think a spell's casting time and its duration overlap?  Or does its duration start when the casting time ends?

 

Did my previous response to you clarify some things?

#62

Noctaem

Aug 28, 2015 20:13:32

Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #62)

vonklaude

Noctaem wrote:
#64

ezrider23

Aug 29, 2015 9:13:32

The Combat action: READY has a very specific set of rules. If followed there really should be no confusion.

 

PG 192-193. Please folks. Go read them and you'll hopefully no longer be confused.

As far as spells are concerned.

The Spell is cast at the time of the Action being used to cast it. Be it, Action, Bonus or Reaction. In the case of Ready you use your action to cast the spell. Then use your concentration to hold the spell. After this you can use your reaction to release the spell after the trigger happens or you can chose to ignore the trigger. 

 

THE EFFECTS OF THE SPELL DO NOT BEGIN TO TAKE EFFECT UNTIL THE RESOLUTION OF THE REACTION. That is when you begin tracking duration, be it an attack or save effect.

 

I guess the only rules that would need to be clarified, which i may have missed, is whether or not the act of "ignoring the trigger" means just letting the concentration disapate and not losing the slot. I believe that is the reason why the trigger needs to be somewhat specific when making the READY.

#65

vonklaude

Aug 29, 2015 16:19:24

ezrider23 wrote:
#66

ezrider23

Aug 29, 2015 16:39:39

No you chose your target/targets at the time of casting. This is why it's helpful to be more specific in your TRIGGER.

 

I use my action to READY "Hold Person" on the first enemy that i see, you now cast and hold the spell to be released on the first enemy that comes into the doorway. Enemy opens door but does not enter through it. You now can take your reaction and release the spell on the enemy as long as you can see him. He gets a save and you find out if your action was a sucess or failure.

 

You always have to chose a target(s) when you cast a spell, unless one is specified in the text of the spell itself.. That's just how spells work. READY is meant to be a gamble. DM'ing around the gamble with homebrew R(ules)A(s)F(un) is a way for non-sanctioned DM's to cope with these issues. 

#67

vonklaude

Aug 29, 2015 16:51:16

ezrider23 wrote:
#68

ezrider23

Aug 29, 2015 21:38:55

I don't really understand.

You cast the spell as per the rules. Which includes picking a target or targets or specific area.

You hold the spell via the Ready Action, which is a special case.

Once the trigger happens you "release" holding the magic and it either effects the specified targets or it does not. Or the trigger never occures and you "release" the magic/spell to no effect. 

Releasing the spell is specifically mentioned under the description of "Ready" on pg. 193

 

AS per the basic rules pdf.

 

READY

Sometimes you want to get the jump on a foe or wait for a particular circumstance before you act. To do so, you can take the Ready action on your turn, which lets you act using your reaction before the start of your next turn.

First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it. Examples include “If the cultist steps on the trapdoor, I’ll pull the lever that opens it,” and “If the goblin steps next to me, I move away.”

When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger. Remember that you can take only one reaction per round.

When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs. To be readied, a spell must have a casting time of 1 action, and holding onto the spell’s magic requires concentration (explained in chapter 10). If your concentration is broken, the spell dissipates without taking effect. For example, if you are concentrating on the web spell and ready magic missile, your web spell ends, and if you take damage before you release magic missile with your reaction, your concentration might be broken.

 

You would then follow the rules for Casting a spell layed out in Chapter 10. I see what you are driving at though. See, what is happening is the Ready to react towards a trigger is the point where you are chosing your target. The Readying of the spell changes the way targeting happens. No there is no clear cut RAW to cite it's just buried in the way the rules interact.

 

I'm using my Action to Ready Magic Missile. When the first enemy steps into sight i'll blast him.

Enemy enters doorway and PEW, PEW, PEW....3 bolts of shimmering energy crash into his chest. ROLL INITIATIVE.

VS. 

ROLL INITIATIVE.

I cast Magic Missile. 2 hit enemy number 1 hopefully killing him and the 3rd will go towards another. (Some DM are generous enough to resolve these in order so as to not waste an attack, other do not). RAW states they are released silmultaneously therefore the targets are all chosen at once not in Missile/DMG, Missile/DMG, Missile/DMG.

 

Do you kinda sorta see what i'm saying here? Please say you do and move on becuase quite frankly folks are over complicating the whole READY situation.

#69

vonklaude

Aug 30, 2015 5:30:53

ezrider23 wrote:
#70

Orethalion

Aug 30, 2015 8:09:56

Slagger_the_Chuul wrote:
#71

Orethalion

Aug 30, 2015 8:12:03

Noctaem wrote:
#72

Orethalion

Aug 30, 2015 8:18:56

Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #61)

Coredump00

Bloodscythe wrote:
#74

Orethalion

Aug 30, 2015 8:28:25

Bloodscythe wrote:
#75

Orethalion

Aug 30, 2015 8:29:01

Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #44)

Coredump00

Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #69)

ezrider23

vonklaude wrote:
(Reply to #74)

ezrider23

Orethalion wrote:
#79

Orethalion

Aug 30, 2015 13:59:53

ezrider23 wrote:
#80

ezrider23

Aug 30, 2015 14:25:54

I was talking about the vague triggers and a DM enforcing them. Sometimes you need to be a "dick" to get a point across.

 

"BE SPECIFIC IN YOUR READIED REACTION TRIGGER OR YOU STAND TO LOSE SPELL SLOTS ON NOTHING."

#81

Orethalion

Aug 30, 2015 14:30:46

ezrider23 wrote:
#82

Coredump00

Aug 30, 2015 15:53:54

 

 

Lets try a different question.... 

 

Player: My PC readies an action to attack a kobold that moves.

 

DM: Kobold A starts moving....

 

Can the Player 'ignore' *that* trigger... but still keep the readied action, and hope for a second trigger?

Example:

 

Player: I ignore that trigger (Kobold A moving)

DM: Kobold A runs out the door.

DM: Now Kobold B starts moving...

Player: I shoot Kobold A

 

What do you think?

#83

Coredump00

Aug 30, 2015 15:58:58

 

 

Player: I ready an attack for when an enemy moves

 

Does the player have to specify what kind of attack? With what weapon?

 

Could the player wait to see what enemy moves, and then decide how to attack? (lets say he is holding a dagger and a light hammer...so an 'attack' could be one of 4  options.)

 

 

 

 

Personally, I envision a readied action to be on a 'hair trigger'....  so it needs some specificity as to what they plan on doing, and what the trigger is.  I don't have any hard rules for it....

#84

Orethalion

Aug 30, 2015 16:46:59

Coredump00 wrote:
#85

Orethalion

Aug 30, 2015 17:07:07

Coredump00 wrote:
#86

Noctaem

Aug 30, 2015 17:52:44

Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #82)

Danny_Montanny

Coredump00 wrote:
#88

Noctaem

Aug 30, 2015 17:51:31

Coredump00 wrote:
#89

Orethalion

Aug 30, 2015 18:19:16

Noctaem wrote:
#90

vonklaude

Aug 30, 2015 19:49:58

Orethalion wrote:
#91

Orethalion

Aug 30, 2015 21:18:30

vonklaude wrote:
#92

vonklaude

Aug 30, 2015 23:40:37

Orethalion wrote:
#93

Noctaem

Aug 31, 2015 3:01:39

lol Orethalion, you can't back up what you just said.  You as a DM or even a player might think you need to be more specific, but the rules simply don't agree.  And when readying, you're not in character, you're out of character (acting as the player) explaining what your character will do.  When you do that, saying "I ready the attack action for when the door opens" is a totally legitimate and legal trigger and action.  You've given the action you're going to take and the perceivable event that will trigger the action you chose.  The intent behind the readied action is also obvious, you're going to attack a legal target within range of whichever weapon you decide to use when the door opens.  You don't need anything else or something more specific.  Action, trigger, intent.

(Reply to #90)

Danny_Montanny

vonklaude wrote:
#95

Noctaem

Aug 31, 2015 4:31:24

Danny_Montanny wrote:
(Reply to #95)

Danny_Montanny

Noctaem wrote:
#97

Noctaem

Aug 31, 2015 5:18:19

Danny_Montanny wrote:
#98

vonklaude

Aug 31, 2015 5:22:51

Danny_Montanny wrote:
#99

Orethalion

Aug 31, 2015 6:28:57

vonklaude wrote:
#100

Orethalion

Aug 31, 2015 6:27:23

Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #82)

Bloodscythe

Coredump00 wrote:
#102

Orethalion

Aug 31, 2015 6:50:48

So let me provide some examples of particularity.  "I like horses (vague), palamino stalions in particuar (specific)"  or "I want to ready the attack action (vague), in particular I'm going to swing my sword at the first SOB that walks through the door (specific)".  The very first rule in readying an action is that the circumstance (trigger) must be particular (specific).  The second rule that it be perceivable relates to the first, so your trigger has to be both particular (specific) and perceivable.  It's not enough for it to simply be perceivable like Noctaem has been saying.  It's also clear from the examples that it's not enough to simply say I attack action or I move action.  The examples show pulling the lever, not I use an object.  They show moving away, not move.'

 

If you want to play where you can be vague instead of particular, that's fine, but it isn't how the ready action reads or is presented.

(Reply to #73)

Bloodscythe

Coredump00 wrote:
#104

Noctaem

Aug 31, 2015 7:19:00

Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #102)

Bloodscythe

Orethalion wrote:
#106

Danny_Montanny

Aug 31, 2015 7:50:38

When I need a game system to micromanage time in a turn/round basis, that also tracks actions and reactions, I use it. When I switch to such a system I use a game mechanic to represent how fast a PC can react to that switch. Being "ready" for that switch has no baring on your reaction time, in my opinion. However, a combination of luck, aptitude, and training do.

 

If I'm not using the time management system and an interaction that uses said system comes up (specifically utilizing the action and reaction mechanics), it doesn't make much sense to me to use said interaction. I'd utilize another form of adjudication.

 

If the scenario presented by vonklaude was already utilizing a turn/round system when the character used their Ready action, fine. I interpreted it as the scenario that is usually used in this case, however. Which is the switch between not managing time, to micromanaging it. I'd at best tell the caster that their readied spell can be cast on their first turn (a product of how fast they can actually react), but not before then using a reaction.

 

Don't like it? That's ok. My interpretation of the rules is no less wrong than yours.

#107

Noctaem

Aug 31, 2015 7:55:10

Bloodscythe wrote:
#108

Noctaem

Aug 31, 2015 7:58:44

Danny_Montanny wrote:
(Reply to #107)

Bloodscythe

Noctaem wrote:
#110

Noctaem

Aug 31, 2015 8:11:56

Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #108)

Danny_Montanny

Noctaem wrote:
#112

Noctaem

Aug 31, 2015 8:32:00

Danny_Montanny wrote:
#113

ezrider23

Aug 31, 2015 8:50:24

This is no longer a RULES debate it's becoming a pissing match. The rules were clarified long ago via actually reading the PHB and Jeremy Crawford's tweets on the subject. The rest is up to a DM implimenting them at HIS/HER table. How they chose to do so is ultimately up to them.

 

You like vague triggers and switching things around as needed then go for it.

You like being more specific and strict at your table, okay.

You want a middle ground. Sure why not.

 

Really, this thread needs to drift away very quickly because at this point in time it's really not helping anyone.

(Reply to #112)

Danny_Montanny

Noctaem wrote:
#115

Noctaem

Aug 31, 2015 10:46:48

You mean like how the SWAT team prepares itself before going into a dangerous building or area because they have a good idea that there's risk within?  If you as the DM create a situation or allow one to develop where the best option is always to ready actions and act like a SWAT team then that's on you, not your players.  The same can be said if you always create surprise against the PC's, would you really rail against them for getting the Observant feat in response?  If you don't want an arms race, DON'T CREATE ONE.  Use different approaches to combat, different set ups, different initiators or different goals in combat.  If the goal isn't to simply kill the opponents because that's either futile or won't resolve the problem combat represents and the party has no idea what they're walking into that alone can change things around.  Basically, if all you do is give the party a zone to explore where they go from room to room and there's monsters in each room that aren't organic in how they act then you can really only blame yourself.  Acting like a SWAT team in that kind of scenario is a great tactical choice and you should congratulate your players for realizing and implementing that successfully.

 

As mentioned previously, spells are different because once you ready a spell you actually consume the spell slot ahead of time.  And that brings me back to wheaton's law, are you really going to tell a player who readies a spell outside of combat "oh I'm sorry 6 seconds have passed, you lost the spel and used up a spell slot?"  Why would you do that?  That's so anti-fun and pedantic of you as the DM.

 

It's simple, I don't subscribe to the notion that some actions can only be taken during combat because that's a restrictive and unnecessary rule.  He doesn't say it can only be used in combat to be clear, what he says is that those actions are intended for use in combat.  Basically, are you really going to tell someone they can't ready themselves to attack because they aren't in combat yet?  That's nonsense.  I use initiative however because the attacks for the readied actions, so long as they aren't what prompts combat, should be resolved within combat and follow the initiative order for ease of resolution.

 

And finally I never said mine was the right one or only one, I said yours was terrible and mine was better because I don't restrict or limit what my players can do, I don't act like a pedant while DM'ing this kind of situation and I don't enforce nonsensical RAI's like "you can't ready an attack because you're not in combat right now and you don't have access to that action."  Unless Mr crawford just didn't explain with enough detail that for example you can ready stuff outside combat, it's just the mechanical action itself is only meant to be used in combat.  But I digress.

 

 

#116

Greenstone.Walker

Aug 31, 2015 16:57:07

Bloodscythe wrote:
#117

Noctaem

Aug 31, 2015 17:01:11

Greenstone.Walker wrote:
#118

Orethalion

Aug 31, 2015 17:54:07

Bloodscythe wrote:
#119

Orethalion

Aug 31, 2015 17:55:06

Noctaem wrote:
#120

Orethalion

Aug 31, 2015 17:56:04

Bloodscythe wrote:
#121

Slagger_the_Chuul

Sep 01, 2015 0:04:08

Noctaem wrote:
#122

vonklaude

Sep 01, 2015 3:46:22

Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #120)

Bloodscythe

Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #116)

Bloodscythe

Greenstone.Walker wrote:
#125

Orethalion

Sep 01, 2015 6:21:14

vonklaude wrote:
#126

Orethalion

Sep 01, 2015 6:24:04

Bloodscythe wrote:
#127

Orethalion

Sep 01, 2015 6:26:10

Bloodscythe wrote:
#128

Noctaem

Sep 01, 2015 7:10:10

Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #126)

Bloodscythe

Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #127)

Bloodscythe

Orethalion wrote:
#131

Orethalion

Sep 01, 2015 18:46:56

Noctaem wrote:
#132

Orethalion

Sep 01, 2015 18:47:57

Bloodscythe wrote:
#133

Orethalion

Sep 01, 2015 18:48:53

Bloodscythe wrote:
#134

vonklaude

Sep 02, 2015 3:15:47

Orethalion wrote:
#135

Orethalion

Sep 02, 2015 6:22:01

vonklaude wrote:
#136

Danny_Montanny

Sep 02, 2015 8:07:15

I think it all boils down to being able to have clear intent. What's the player trying to accomplish and how are they going to try and accomplish it? I'd even go as far as to have them tell me the why if I felt it'd help me adjudicate.

 

"I want to ready Hold Person and release it when the door opens."

"Ok, is there any particular reason you want to do this?"

"Yeah, I'm hoping to stop whoever might be in there in the door way so no one else can file in after them."

"Got it. So after the door opens, you want to release your spell on someone trying to come through the door so they block the doorway?"

"Exactly."

"Sounds awesome!"

 

Having the player reason out their intent gives me the tools I need to adjudicate. Notice how casting the spell isn't the actual goal. The same way that attacking a creature isn't the goal, the goal is damaging the creature, attacking it is the approach.

 

If your player isn't willing to have an interaction with you to express these things, then I'd say that they're trying to be difficult for the sake of being difficult. It serves absolutely no purpose.

 

You can argue that RAW says you don't have to have that discussion, but when push comes to shove, it just makes thing go so much easier for the game. Not to mention, the fun of it.

(Reply to #136)

Bloodscythe

Danny_Montanny wrote:
(Reply to #132)

Bloodscythe

Orethalion wrote:
#139

Noctaem

Sep 03, 2015 5:29:59

Bloodscythe wrote:
#140

Orethalion

Sep 02, 2015 18:25:47

Bloodscythe wrote:
#141

vonklaude

Sep 02, 2015 19:38:47

Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #141)

Bloodscythe

vonklaude wrote:
#143

Noctaem

Sep 03, 2015 5:32:18

Bloodscythe wrote:
(Reply to #143)

Danny_Montanny

Noctaem wrote:
#145

Orethalion

Sep 03, 2015 6:35:06

Danny_Montanny wrote:
#146

Noctaem

Sep 03, 2015 7:36:10

Danny_Montanny wrote:
#147

Noctaem

Sep 03, 2015 7:30:26

Orethalion wrote:
#148

vonklaude

Sep 03, 2015 15:47:48

Bloodscythe wrote:
#149

Orethalion

Sep 04, 2015 6:52:40

Noctaem wrote:
#150

Orethalion

Sep 04, 2015 7:04:04

vonklaude wrote:
#151

Noctaem

Sep 04, 2015 8:00:37

Orethalion wrote:
#152

Orethalion

Sep 04, 2015 8:55:46

Noctaem wrote:
#153

Noctaem

Sep 04, 2015 9:12:49

Orethalion wrote:
#154

Orethalion

Sep 04, 2015 9:16:12

Noctaem wrote:
#155

Noctaem

Sep 04, 2015 9:57:56

You're not doing anything you want, you've limited yourself to a specific action (in this case the Attack action granting 1 attack with your weapon) against an enemy within range.  How is that "too powerful"?  Basically you're saying that allowing a player to choose a target when they make the attack they readied = too powerful.  Would you feel the same way if it was readying the fireball spell and not choosing the area where the spell will target effect in your trigger?  If so why?  Why does it even matter?

 

As for your second paragraph, that's not really the concern of the discussion is it?  It's your job as the DM to be the window the player's look through to see the game world.  It's your job to relay that the dragon might not be an enemy if that's your goal.  If you suddenly make a dragon come out of a cave that the player's are getting ready to attack (the scenario you provided) and they attack the dragon, that's on you.  Their reaction is pretty much justified if they attack the dragon.  It just became the primary threat for the combat that's about to begin.  And it's not like this is a game where there's flags to determine who is hostile and who is not.  If I want to attack the dragon that just came out of the cave, I don't have to wait for it to tell me that it's my enemy before I can.  I can simply attack it if I want and your job as the DM is to relay the consequences of my actions.  Not tell me I can't attack the dragon because you need it to stay alive so you can relay some plot information.

#156

Orethalion

Sep 04, 2015 10:05:22

Noctaem wrote:
#157

Noctaem

Sep 04, 2015 11:07:55

And why is trying to guarantee (or just generally raise the odds) your trigger is met and your readied action occurs a bad thing?  Why would you as the DM attempt to make it harder for that to happen?  What benefit is there in doing that?  Does it make the game more fun to have your DM make it harder for you to perform the actions you want because he finds it unfair to let you target who you want when you make the attack you readied?

 

Again, most spells don't require enemy or ally.  They just allow you to target creatures within their range.  Why would you stop someone from making an attack against an NPC, especially in the scenario you presented, just because they haven't specifically stated if they were friend or foe.  And why do you as the DM get to decide who the players consider friend or foe and then essentially remove that choice and force them to be friend or foe based on your whims?

 

It seems like you're a very controlling DM Orethalion, maybe that's not the case in actual play, but the vibe I'm getting here indicates that that would be the case.

(Reply to #150)

Bloodscythe

Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #154)

Bloodscythe

Orethalion wrote:
#160

Orethalion

Sep 04, 2015 12:13:26

Noctaem wrote:
#161

vonklaude

Sep 04, 2015 17:04:01

Bloodscythe wrote:
#162

El_Condoro

Sep 04, 2015 19:01:28

I would accept "I ready a (specified) spell to cast at whatever comes through the door if I think it is an enemy". Just as perception is reality, if the PC believes the creature to be an enemy (even if it is not) it is an enemy for them. Now, if that perception proves false, then the consequences are roleplayed as normal but the spell has a valid trigger.

(Reply to #162)

ezrider23

El_Condoro wrote:
#164

Noctaem

Sep 04, 2015 22:36:23

Orethalion wrote:
#165

Orethalion

Sep 05, 2015 22:31:18

Noctaem wrote:
#166

vonklaude

Sep 05, 2015 23:18:19

Orethalion wrote:
#167

Orethalion

Sep 06, 2015 8:55:41

vonklaude wrote:
#168

vonklaude

Sep 06, 2015 20:27:03

Orethalion wrote:
#169

Orethalion

Sep 06, 2015 22:56:33

vonklaude wrote:
#170

vonklaude

Sep 07, 2015 0:05:35

Orethalion wrote:
#171

Danny_Montanny

Sep 07, 2015 4:37:21

The biggest problem I see with the argument, and it'll just start a new one, is that the players don't dictate what rules are involved in adjudication, the DM does. So, yes the Ready action rules might be the right tool for the job, but it also might not be. Inside of a turn/round structure the Ready action is easily adjudicated, but not so much outside of it. This is also the problem I have with players describing their actions using the gaming minutiae. They expect you to adjudicate using those rules, and it's not always going to be the case. You can scream, "player agency" all you want but it doesn't change anything. A DM playing in bad faith is a DM playing in bad faith (and same goes for a player). Just because they may not agree with the players 100% of the time on adjudication (which isn't the player's responsibility in the first place) that doesn't mean they're playing in bad faith. It seems that sometimes people forget that the DM is also there playing the game to have fun, they're not there to just be Adjicationbot 5000. If they need a certain thing to keep the game running smooth and fun for everyone (including themselves), is a fight really worth it if they're not playing in bad faith?

#172

Orethalion

Sep 07, 2015 6:46:44

vonklaude wrote:
#173

El_Condoro

Sep 07, 2015 19:23:07

The DM shouldn't need to ask when the trigger occurs - the player should be attentive to when it occurs and interject (politely) with something like "That triggers my readied action". It might even keep them attentive between their turns. The description of Ready has "you can...ignore the trigger", so the player can choose when the trigger occurs. Unless you would rule that they get only one chance - not only "when a goblin comes around the corner..." but "when the first goblin comes around the corner..." I don't rule that way.

 

 

#174

vonklaude

Sep 07, 2015 20:00:43

Orethalion wrote:
#175

Orethalion

Sep 07, 2015 21:30:44

vonklaude wrote:
#176

El_Condoro

Sep 07, 2015 21:57:20

As I said above, no you don't need to stop the flow - the player will do that when he or she believes the trigger has been met. An enemy is an enemy if the PC believes it to be - and only the player can say what the PC believes is an enemy without the DM stepping all over player agency. If the bunny is perceived as an enemy or the demon lord is entirely up to the player/PC, not the DM. There is no need to ask, "Do you think that's an enemy?" because the player will tell you when they do (or they miss the trigger). If they get it wrong and it's not hostile (an enemy) then so be it - they get to roleplay their way out of that decision.

 

#177

vonklaude

Sep 08, 2015 4:52:49

Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #172)

Bloodscythe

Orethalion wrote:
(Reply to #175)

Bloodscythe

Orethalion wrote:
#180

Danny_Montanny

Sep 08, 2015 5:54:19

And we circle back to player intent (what they're trying to accomplish). Just because you may know, or assume you know, what a player wants to do, doesn't mean I do. We understand and interpret everything in this world differently. So if Orethalion or I need our players to describe their actions in a more "specific" manner, so we can rightfully narrate the outcome, it's in our preview to do so. We're still staying within the guidelines of the RAW. Bitch about it if you want, but that doesn't mean we're playing in bad faith, and it definitely doesn't mean you have to play in our game. This is the single most fundamental aspect of the game and the whole thing comes to a screeching halt when friction is applied.

 

Yes, this is the Rules forum, but when there is absolutely no clear cut answere, the rule is for the DM to work it out. You may think the answer is cut and dry, but it's obviously open enough to interpretation not to be. This isn't a binary game, it needs the Human element to function, because of that that there will always be differences in interpretation.

#181

Orethalion

Sep 08, 2015 6:09:28

vonklaude wrote:
(Reply to #180)

Bloodscythe

Danny_Montanny wrote:
#183

vonklaude

Sep 08, 2015 19:51:01

Orethalion wrote:
#184

Orethalion

Sep 08, 2015 21:16:22

vonklaude wrote:
#185

vonklaude

Sep 09, 2015 5:11:02

Orethalion wrote:
#186

Orethalion

Sep 09, 2015 6:07:36

vonklaude wrote:
#187

vonklaude

Sep 09, 2015 20:36:28

Orethalion wrote:
#188

Orethalion

Sep 09, 2015 20:51:14

vonklaude wrote:
#189

vonklaude

Sep 10, 2015 2:43:40

Orethalion wrote:
#190

ezrider23

Sep 10, 2015 17:53:49

PLEASE STOP and be thankful you don't play at the same tables.

#191

Orethalion

Sep 10, 2015 18:21:35

ezrider23 wrote:
(Reply to #191)

ezrider23

Orethalion wrote:
#193

Orethalion

Sep 10, 2015 18:44:40

ezrider23 wrote:
#194

JohnnyBlaise

Sep 10, 2015 18:55:27

I do not see a "trigger" as a limiting rule, so much as just an explanation of how it works.  I mean, it is pretty standard for a group of people in real life to do something, "on the count of three."  That is the most simple example of how a readied action works.  And that is clearly something that will always trigger (baring silence magic) because its a trigger completely in the control of a PC that can be activated off turn for no actions.  

#195

Orethalion

Sep 10, 2015 19:07:12

JohnnyBlaise wrote:
#196

JohnnyBlaise

Sep 10, 2015 20:17:47

Orethalion, I don't understand your response.  We certainly can ready to attack "on the count of 3."  And since I can count to three out loud out of turn whenever I want to, I can trigger the attack whenever I want to.

#197

Orethalion

Sep 10, 2015 22:17:16

JohnnyBlaise wrote:
#198

Noctaem

Sep 11, 2015 5:11:29

Orethalion wrote:
#199

Orethalion

Sep 11, 2015 6:10:49

Noctaem wrote:
#200

El_Condoro

Sep 11, 2015 15:47:44

Trigger: I ready magic missile to cast at an orc that comes through the door. "The door" is specific in this instance as there is only one. The spell is specific - magic missile. "An orc" - is that specific? Not technically, because it could be any orc. "The orc" or "That orc" would be specific.

 

So, situation:

The first orc that comes through the door is old and decrepit and seems unable to put up a decent fight and it is possible other, stronger orcs, will follow behind him.

Can the PC hold his spell to target one of them?

 

I would argue and allow that he/she can. In fact, I would allow the PC to use "an enemy" in place of "an orc" (where "enemy" is whatever the player perceives one to be). The PC has held that magic missile long enough to ready it at some point before their next turn and I would allow them to ignore the decrepit orc in the hope of a better target. As I describe the creatures coming through the door, the player will say which one to target - "I let fly with my magic missile at that one".

 

@Orethalion: Am I correct in thinking you would not allow the PC to target any creature except the first decrepit orc?

#201

Orethalion

Sep 11, 2015 15:59:50

El_Condoro wrote:
#202

vonklaude

Sep 11, 2015 16:16:08

Orethalion wrote:
#203

Saeviomagy

Sep 13, 2015 17:44:48

As a DM, I would allow "I ready (action)" with no triggering scenario required. As is, readying is a mechanic to overcome the flaws of the initiative system, and players are penalised to discourage them from making use of it. To then strip that action because of semantics seems silly, and doesn't appear to solve any problems that I can see.

(Reply to #201)

Bloodscythe

Orethalion wrote:
#205

Orethalion

Sep 14, 2015 18:57:21

Bloodscythe wrote: