First, I was following another thread and so this may be redundant: "Remember that you can take only one reaction per round" - pg. 72 in basic rules (under ready action) is a bit of typo/misnomer, right? Presumably, the description of reaction is the more specific ruling: "When you take a reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn." - pg 70 Wherein there are many instances where a player could use a reaction, take their turn, and use another reaction within the same round.
Now on to sneak attacks; I've seen discussion about rogues receiving sneak attack dice when they use the attack action (with all criteria for sneak attack dice fulfilled and hit) AND when they use their reaction with an opportunity attack (when the criteria are still fulfilled). Presumably this is because the sneak attack says "Once per turn" and the reaction occurs on another player/dm's turn? I had thought that the reaction was inherently tied to one's turn (from the wording noted above) and thus I would have already used my sneak attack dice and not get the opportunity to apply them until my next turn (despite the use of my reaction).
A round is the time from the end of your turn until the start of your next turn, which is how things like reactions that are limited to 1 per round can reset their availability at the start of your turn and yet still be limited to only once per round.
Your reaction is not inherently tied to your turn in any other way, so you can use your sneak attack on your turn and then on someone else's turn as reaction if a situation that grants you an attack (that meets the sneak attack requirements) as a reaction.
My experience, however, is that the rogue is going to be using more reactions for uncanny dodge than anything else.
The distinction between round and turn is significant in 5e.
A reaction is once per round, measured from the start of your turn to the start of your next turn.
A sneak attack is once per turn, measured from the start of anyone's turn to the start of the next guy's turn.
Hypothetically, if the rogue could attack every turn, he'd get sneak attack damage once on every turn. (For example wording, consider a creature with both Sneak Attack and Legendary Actions which allow it to make an attack. I don't think such a creature exists, but you can imagine a creature with both abilities to see how the wording interacts.) However, opportunity attacks are a reaction, and reactions are once per round, limiting sneak attack on an opportunity attack to be the same.
Hope that helps.
Yeah, don't confuse "the round" with "a round". The combat round will be from the start of the highest initiative to the end of the lowest initiative. Whereas, a round is the span of 6 seconds in which each participant takes a turn.
So if you have three combatants A, B, and C, "THE round" is A takes a turn, B takes a turn, and C takes a turn, then THE round ends. But the time between B's turn in Round 1 and B's turn in Round 2 is "a round" because B, then C, then A each take a turn and is also a 6 second window of time. Even though the Readied action says it allows you to act before the end of "the round", the intent of the rule is "a round".
Jeremy C. confirmed that a Readied action's reaction's "once per round" restriction is once per "a round", and not once per "the round". I'd say this applies to reactions in general as well.
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
Gosh, I'd never have read the rules that way. Glad I tapped into this thread! Thanks.
Interesting. Sneak Attack really says "Once per turn" and not "Once per your turn", never noticed that.
A fun combo if you dip fighter 2.
Attack, then use action surge to ready an attack = Double sneak attack.
Rya.Reisender wrote:
AndyDay wrote:
mellored wrote:
EmpactWB wrote:
Also note that Action Surge grants you another action within the current turn, not an immediate extra turn.
So if you've already used Sneak Attack, then any attacks granted by Action Surge cannot add Sneak Attack damage.
As for readying that extra attack? I guess it's a more reliable way to get a single out-of-turn attack than hoping for an Opportunity attack.
When I was playing a rogue, I used to have the party wizard cast haste on my rogue for double sneak attack.
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Cool, I see.
jaelis wrote:
Thief archtype is pretty bad tho...compared to just killing the monster outright with 1 hit like assasins do. 1 more level and the assasin is autocriting for quadruple damage on the first round.
Best thing about thiefs are drinking potions and still attacking.
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
It literally is the text as printed in the book. If you want to claim it says something other than it does, feel free, but it does not.
Again as I said, answer the simple question "when does the round end?" The answer is when the last participant completes its turn. This isn't my "interpretation". It's Step 5 of the steps of combat.
It's just another example of the RAW not conveying the RAI and needing clarification. Sure, some people reasoned that it "makes sense" to say a readied action can be used before a character's next turn... but that is not what the rules actually say.
In fact, can you quote anywhere in the book where a round is defined as from one participant's turn to their next turn? The only examples that I'm aware of are spell descriptions, but as I've said in other threads, those aren't consistent because while some spells say they last until the start of your next turn, some state they last until the end of your next turn, and others still say they last until your targets turn. And while you can take the definition of "a round" and reason that it is from one participant's turn to their next turn, such a definition would mean that literally after the first round of turns, each turn concludes a "round", and per the rules of combat, would suggest that each participant gets to take a turn. We all know this is not the intent, but it is the rules as they are written.
So yes, we do know what the rule is... because Jeremy stated the intent, not because the text says it works that way.
Being a Rules forum, I thought it important to draw attention to what the rule actually says versus what "makes sense". It is certainly not needing further discussion though since Jeremy has stated the intent of the rule.
Coredump00 wrote:
~~
Coredump00 wrote:
AndyDay wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
AndyDay wrote:
Byakugan01 wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
It simply sets up a Reaction attack. If you have any other way of regularly using your Reaction to attack (granted attacks, opportunity attacks, or whatever), it works the same, but Readying is a reliable way of doing so. It isn't even less dependent on external stimulus, since that's required for the Readied action to occur anyway.
Coredump00 wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
EmpactWB wrote:
~~
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
AndyDay wrote:
It is as intended. Jeremy Crawford has clearly stated as much via twitter. It's really not that big of a deal, you guys are blowing it out of proportion since you're not looking at the big picture.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Ok but then you have a spellcaster using spell slots AND having to keep up concentration for this to work meaning he can't cast another concentration spell. So that's one of the more resource expensive ways to do it. It's also kind of silly because if there's a fighter in the group who can attack 2+ times per attack action at minimum, he should really be the one getting hasted as I've explained previously. And that's not to say that the readied action by the rogue may or may not have any impact. Anyway doesn't really make sense to me that they would cry foul.
Noctaem wrote:
Speaking of Ready action exploits, could a wizard who is surrounded escape with misty step and then ready to lob a fireball at the horde if any of them move? Does this get around the bonus action spell restriction?
Bloodscythe wrote:
Stormborn20 wrote:
Stormborn20 wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
reddaemon wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
AndyDay wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Actually, we're talking about using a readied action instead of hoping for an opportunity attack, relying on granted reactions like Commander's Strike, dipping to Fighter 3 or Monk 3 for Riposte or Deflect Missile (respectively), etc. We already tossed about dipping into Fighter 2 for Action Surge.
So we're talking about making it more reliable to do twice per round when you can already do so on occasion entirely within the rules. We hit 5x in the first round on page one, because Thief 17 gives you two turns in the first round, and SA refreshes per turn, not round, and reactions refresh at the start of your turn. Edit for clarity.
While I can get the emotion behind feeling like it's an exploit, I don't get the logic behind saying its overpowered considering the party investment into the tactic.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
EmpactWB wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
I agree that rogues should totally be able to use Sneak Attack as opportunity attack.
The only real question should be: Can you use the Ready action to Ready an action you could actually NOT do now. The rules honestly are not very specific on what actions you can ready, so I guess realism applies?
Of course you can. "I will shank that goblin when he gets close enough" implies that he isn't close enough yet, so you can't do it now, but I don't think anyone would argue that it can't be done. If it happens that you can get SA damage, so be it.
It should also be noted that more damage now is better than potential damage later. Basic alpha striking.
I've removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/policies/web/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from trolling and baiting your fellow forums posters.
EmpactWB wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
The whole stunt is metagame reasoning, that's what I don't like about it.
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Jaelis wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
EmpactWB wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jaelis wrote:
How are you going to claim that the trigger "after the fighter takes his turn" is too vague for a readied action? How can you possibly even try to claim that?
Orethalion wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
I have no problem with ready actions in general.
If you're proposing that a rogue player be required to explain why the ready action makes sense in game then great. But that is putting a burden on the player that isn't in the rules.
As for sneak attack being inherently metagame, I think its just part of the game. Most of the rules are like that.
jaelis wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Doesn't the trigger need to be something that the character can percieve? How can a character within the game percieve an artificial game construct like the end of a turn?
jonathonhawke wrote:
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
The rules don't say that the condition can't be vague like "When that one creature moves", but I agree that it needs to be something the character can perceive.
jonathonhawke wrote:
I don't think so many people would feel that "what the fighter is planning on doing" is perceivable 
Obviously you can ask the fighter player what he plans to do, and trigger on that. But the point is that plans can change, so the trigger would not be automatic then.
Though I still think triggering on "when the fighter yells 'boo'" is pretty solid.
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Anticipate shmanticipate. The trigger needs to be something perceiveable. He can say "I'll do something when jaelis posts" and he can say "I'll do something when the fighter attacks." But as you say, there is no guarantee that I will post or the fighter will attack. He can't say "I'll do something when the fighter does whatever he plans to do."
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Yup.
I agree. Waiting for a certain event to react on requires quite some concentration. You probably only have one or two seconds to react. If the character does something you totally didn't expect, you probably wouldn't be able to react, even though you waited for the character "to do something".
Not to mention that even though it seems like everybody just stands around for minutes until it's his turn again, in reality everybody is constantly moving during combat. So your character would probably not even perceive when an action starts and when it ends.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
It is not. If it was I would be standing next to Jaelis as he begins and finishes typing his post, upon seeing him actually submit his post I would then act. That's the equivalent. I can't do that however since I'm not standing next to him of course. In-game what I've just described is the exact same scenario happening in the example trigger I gave. I can perceive him starting to type, finishing and then submitting. In game I can see the fighter start to act, do whatever, and then stop acting. You guys are just blind to your own strawmen.
Here's my problem with the "plans to" trigger. If the rogue doesn't know what the fighter plans to do, by definition he won't know when his trigger occurs.
Now, admittedly, if they have been working together for some time and have certain strategies they favor or the fighter explicitly attempts certain things first to gain the measure of the enemies, I'd totally allow it. Those are pretty good reasons to know what the fighter is planning. But that's a role playing concern, as opposed to strictly mechanical.
Personally, I'd favor something more like: the next time an enemy gets within 5 feet of my fighter pal, he gets shanked.
EmpactWB wrote:
Unless you don't want to attract attention to yourself, the rogue could also just tell his fighter friend what he expects him to do. Wordly speech should be allowed as long as it's not longer than what you could say in 6 seconds.
Of course that doesn't mean the fighter listens to the rogue's order. =p
Orethalion wrote:
Exactly. What we have here is people who claim to have authority to say that a trigger isn't specific enough. And then when that claim is challenged they change their argument to say that it's impossible to perceive the trigger given instead. This is just semantics. In my earlier trigger example it was claimed that someone can't perceive another person acting within a 6 second time frame. And yet when a true comparison is given they just ignore it and continue prancing along. Silly stuff.
Well, the book does have examples that are quite specific. If a DM took those examples as actual examples of what a good trigger is (as opposed to just examples of the rule in play), then it would be reasonable to want triggers to be specific.
Noctaem wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
jaelis wrote:
1. Tell bad guy to surrender or you will kill him
2. Ready an action with the trigger, if bad guy takes a hostile action I will attack
It really should be that simple. Why bog your game down debating pointless technicalities? It works as written, if you don't like how sneak attack works, change it instead of coming up with superficial barriers to make it harder to do.
Noctaem wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
~~
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
REDUCTIO ad absurdum... If you're going to throw around fancy debate terminology/latin, at least use the correct words...
phew... now I feel better.
EDIT: and I misspelled absurdum... I corrected it. but I think I broke something in my head.
AndyDay wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Orethalion, I believe the position Bloodscythe is taking is that "get the jump on a foe or wait for a particular circumstance" is more a descriptive phrase than a requirement. These are the things you want; what you need is the perceptible trigger. Personally, I'm seeing a lot of words, but it seems to amount to minimal real disagreement.
Probably the best way to look at it is a duel. "When the clock strikes eight, I will draw my revolver and shoot Clint Eastwood, who looks suspiciously like that McFly guy I hate." (Trigger passed up.) "When that jerk Tannen gets over here, I'm gonna kick the gun out of his hand." (Trigger used.)
Orethalion wrote:
At this point it seems like people are merely arguing about their personal preference instead of actual rules. The DM is free to be as strict or lenient as they want when someone specifies a perceptible trigger. This isn't really a rules discussion anymore. The original question appears to have been answered. Sneak attack works on a per turn basis, not just once per round. Unless I missed some disagreement on that in the last 2 pages of arguing about what is an acceptable trigger for a readied action?
I propose we all accept that different DMs will handle readied actions differently and have a different idea of what is an acceptable trigger. If the rulebook was 1000 pages and written by lawyers, maybe we would have a definite answer to every situation, but since we don't have that, it's up to the DM to make the ruling on these things, which may not be the same conclusion every DM comes to. It doesn't mean one of them is wrong.
reddaemon wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Long-time PF player here about to join my first DnD5 game as a rogue......question about sneak and ranged attacks?
- Ability descriptions says you can sneak with a finesse weapon OR ranged weapon
- Sneak requires advantage OR "if another enemy of the target is within 5' of it", which would mean if one of my allies is in melee
- Therefore, if I shoot an arrow at the orc the ranger is fighting it sounds like I get sneak?
I've only read through the rules once but I cannot seem to find anything that says there is a penalty or disadvantage for firing into melee. Im assuming I've missed something.....or can my rogue sit in the back firing arrows and getting sneak vs every enemy engaged with one of my allies?
thanks in advance for the assist!
Deylinarr wrote:
Deylinarr wrote:
Makes a ton of sense - thanks for the quick response!