| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1Gruff_IronfistApr 14, 2015 17:47:21 |
All this happens in round one (a single initiative pass).
Is this possible?
Reaction (PHB 190) says you cannot use a reaction until the start of your next turn. It does not reference rounds. The implication being that you can use one reaction between your turns.
The "Ready" action (PHB 193) says you can only take one reaction per round. It does not reference turns.
These two rules seem contradictory.
DM felt this wasn't possible, because the bard used 2 reactions in the same round. Player argues that bard can do this, with the downside being he would not be able to use a reaction on round two, when monsters go on initiative 12. Thus, he was making a tactical decision to use that reaction earlier.
A similar situation could be that the bard took no reaction in round one; instead saving it... then in round two before his turn, used cutting words on monster initiative 12... and then his turn arrives (reseting his reaction use), allowing him to use another reaction later in the same round after his turn.
Thoughts?
|
| #2OoftaMegApr 14, 2015 18:24:07 | A round in 5E measures the time between an individual's turn until the start of their next turn. There is no "top of the round".
So if you use your reaction, it resets when your next turn starts. |
| #3jaelisApr 14, 2015 18:33:32 |
|
| #4Coredump00Apr 14, 2015 19:00:23 | There is nothing wrong with what the Bard did.
I would not, however, allowed the Boss Monster have such a vague trigger. |
| (Reply to #4)Danny_Montanny |
|
| #6Byakugan01Apr 14, 2015 20:06:32 | Yeah that readied action is pretty horrible. How does the boss know who PCs are? What if they are hasted, or use action surge or ready an action?
But it sounds like the bard is correct. |
| #7UndrhilApr 14, 2015 20:39:00 | Yeah, this is one of those places where you aren't going to be able to say anything since the monster was being controlled by the DM who can do whatever he wants, really.
However, the general rule for the Ready action is that you have to define an observable event as a trigger. This was a huge contention in 4e where people would ready for the end of a creature's turn or for someone else to 'do something'. The rule in 5e pretty much makes it so you have to limit the trigger to one thing, such as an attack, or movement, or fiddling with a lock .. those are valid triggers ... 'after all the PCs have acted' would not be.
However, again, this was the DM, so who can tell the DM 'you are doing it wrong'? |
| #8Macv12Apr 14, 2015 20:43:04 | The rules of reactions are in the section entitled "Reactions," where it says you get a new one each when your turn starts. The rule in "Ready" is phrased as though to remind the reader of a rule that was already stated. If you assume that a round is "from highest initiative count to lowest," this would actually be a new rule on Reactions in general, written in an entirely separate section of the book. It seems absurd that the writers would do this. It also messes up how Readied actions would work, but I won't get into it; suffice it to say it's not a good road to go down.
It makes more sense if you assume that a "round" is a time measurement, from any creature's turn to their next turn, as well as the top-to-bottom turn-order initiative in some cases. Then the rule actually does restate what was already said: you can't make two reactions in the space between the start of your turn (or of combat) and the start of your next turn. |
| #9Enevhar_AldarionApr 15, 2015 1:26:06 |
|
| #10Rya.ReisenderApr 15, 2015 2:57:20 | As WotC already made it clear that in case of "Surprise" you can take reactions once you got to your turn in the first round, I think it's pretty obvious that all "action slots" are intended to refill at the start of your own turn, unrelated to when the next round starts.
Also I'm personally not so strict with reactions, so I'd allow "I attack after the enemy A acted" as trigger condition. Vague reactions like this also have disadvantages, like when the trigger actives but the target is no longer in your attack range, it will fail anyway.
Though as DM, I usually try to avoid to use reaction with monsters altogether (except for feats and spells).
If I stated the reaction, it kind of spoils the players and they could write "workarounds" to prevent the trigger condition, so usually you wouldn't even tell the player's the creature's trigger condition. And if you don't state the trigger condition to the players they couldn't even complain about it. But it might feel unfair for players, that's why I usually just avoid it altogether. Maybe if I notice the player don't make use of reactions effectively I do it once with a monster so they can watch and learn. =p |
| #11paulstraitApr 15, 2015 7:12:46 |
|
| #12CFKApr 15, 2015 7:23:02 | all vagueness aside: I look at it that before the combat rounds take effect, there where normal rounds. During combat the initiative and rounds are made such that it becomes clear who can do what, when.
So if the bard wasn't surprised, it had a full "reaction status" from the normal, non-combat round before the actuall start of the combat. |
| #13NoctaemApr 15, 2015 7:45:51 |
|
| #14Stormborn20Apr 15, 2015 10:21:13 |
|
| (Reply to #13)Coredump00 |
|
| #16Tempest_StormwindApr 15, 2015 11:21:52 | "I go after they go" used to be handled with Delay, which wasn't technically an action - it was a person electing to take their turn at some later point during the round. They didn't need to specify in advance when that would be, but if they decide to take their turn, they go after the person whose turn it currently is. That is, Delay cannot interrupt an enemy action - that's what Ready was for. (Ready, by contrast, was an action, and required a trigger, but could interrupt an enemy.)
I'd been using that in 5e so far, but upon a deeper inspection, I don't see anything in the basic rules that's equivalent to this, which surprises me. Our teams would always make use of Delay to set up chains of actions (for instance, if Rogue rolled higher initiative than Fighter, Rogue might delay until after Fighter to allow Fighter the chance to close in on a target and knock it prone before Rogue moved in for a Sneak Attack takedown). |
| #17BloodscytheApr 16, 2015 12:55:18 | Interesting thread... I read these rules differently.
Surprise: "... can't take a reaction until that turn ends." Reactions: "When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn."
The combat round begins with the start of the turn of highest initiative and ends at the end of the turn of the lowest initiative.
So you can use a reaction on the surprise round even if you're surprised, but only after your turn in the initiative order. You can only use 1 reaction during the round, before, or after, or during your turn. (unless surprised) Once you've used your 1 and only reaction for the round, you can't use another one until the start of your next turn (on the next round.)
Example using a fighter who is surprised by two goblins (initiative order: G1, F, G2): Round 1: G1 moves within 5 ft of F and attacks then moves away to hide. F is unable to move or take an action on this turn. G2 moves within 5 ft of F and attacks, then moves away to hide but this allows F to use a reaction to make an OA. F hits and kills G2. Round 1 ends.
Round 2: G1 moves within 5 ft of F and attacks then moves away and hides. (F can't use a reaction yet because it is not yet the start of their next turn.) Reaction refreshes at the beginning of F's turn. F moves to find G1 but fails. Readies action to attack a hostile creature that moves within melee range. Round 2 ends. (Readied action goes away per rules for Readied Actions: The action only allows F to act later during the round, and now the round is ended.)
Round 3: Two more goblins, G4 and G5 enter combat. (Initiative order: G1, G4, F, G5): G1 moves within 5 ft of F and attacks then moves away to hide but this allows F to use a reaction to make an OA. F hits and kills G1. G4 moves within 5 ft of F and attacks then moves away to hide. (F can't use a reaction until the start of their next turn) F moves to G4, attacks and kills G4. (F starts their turn, "their next turn" won't be until next round however so reaction didn't refresh) G5 moves within 5 ft of F and attacks, then moves away to hide. (F can't use a reaction until the start of their next turn)
|
| (Reply to #17)randl |
|
| (Reply to #18)Bloodscythe |
|
| #20jonathonhawkeApr 16, 2015 14:11:08 | Since everybody acts at the rate of once per 6 seconds, there is no "fastest person in combat" or "slowest person in combat" (Exception: high-level Rogues). There is only "person who reacted first to the start of combat" or "person who reacted last to the start of combat". |
| #21YumeiiApr 16, 2015 14:30:25 |
|
| (Reply to #20)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #21)Bloodscythe |
|
| #24HamsterkillApr 17, 2015 8:14:22 |
|
| #25YumeiiApr 17, 2015 8:55:09 |
|
| #26jonathonhawkeApr 17, 2015 9:05:25 |
|
| #27NoctaemApr 17, 2015 9:10:52 | Yes exactly, to me it's very clear the bloodscythe is operating under the veil of personal bias and that he just doesn't understand how initiative works and why it works the way it does. This discussion is actually happening in two different threads where he's saying the same thing. The person who goes first in initiative is completely immune to readied actions by everyone else in the combat encounter while the last person cannot make use of the readied action at all since they lose their readied action as soon as their turn ends. It makes no sense at all and his response when this is pointed out is "It doesn't have to make sense to you". Well sorry buddy but if you're going to make claims that essentially break down major parts of how combat works then yes, it kind of does have to make sense to others.
Best thing to do imo is ask Jeremy Crawford on twitter how HE designed the game and if it's really meant to work in such a way. I'd bet money it's not. |
| #28BloodscytheApr 22, 2015 11:16:49 | Oh hey, forgot about this thread:
I asked Jeremy C. and he responded. He confirmed that readied actions and reactions are usable not just during a combat round, but during the round between your turn and your next turn.
And for the record, it's not "personal bias"... it's called Rules As Written. The rules as written, per the Readied Action, in fact say you can use a readied action later in the round. And the rules as written, per the Steps of Combat, say the round ends when the last person in initiative order takes their turn, and a new round begins, defining each combat round as a span of 6 seconds that encompasses the turns of each participant, starting with the highest initiative order to the lowest.
And since the readied action uses the phrasing "later in the round", though your oval track mindset does work, to make the analogy accurate, you would only be able to trip a fellow racer if you're on the same lap, so falling back doesn't work. Essentially, you altered the analogy to fit your argument. Since each participant are in the same round, you would have to also always be in the same lap or you break the analogy. Participant A can never "lap" participant B in combat unless you're suggesting that participant A can take the 2nd round turn before participant B takes their 1st round turn.
Anyway, irrelevant. Jeremy C has spoken and the intent of the rules is what you're describing. |
| #29Rya.ReisenderApr 23, 2015 6:10:36 | You really can't apply realism to Rounds vs Turns because a turn is not a realistic object. It's 6 seconds long and yet there are many of them in a 6-second-long time frame (Round) acted out in initiative order.
I guess that's why it's so hard to decide how it should work. You basically restore all your action slots at the beginning of your turn, but you don't really know when that it. It's probably only a few milliseconds after the beginning of the turn of someone with a higher initiative roll than you, but still way before he hits you.
There are basically two approaches...
1. The "first command then act at the same time" approach: This one is basically imagining that there are real "Rounds". Basically it shows "Round 1", then everybody can input their commands and only when everyone did, the actions get acted out basically at the same time but so that those with higher initiative order hit first. Then it shows "Round 2" and repeats. Here it's clear when a round begins and a round ends and you can easily apply rules like "One reaction per round".
2. The "command and act out one-by-one" approach: Here there really isn't a "rounds" concept, but instead you imagine each creature gets a turn by initiative order one-by-one. Each creature gets 6 seconds in which only that creature can act and all the others have to wait until the creature is done. This is closer to RAW and you would really apply "All action slots, including bonus actions and reactions get restored at the beginning of your turn". This is fairly easy to play out as well, even though it's not too realistic (the time between your turns would be "number of creature * 6" seconds instead of just 6 seconds). In this approach of course you can use a reaction right before your turn and right after or during your turn. There are no rounds, you can't apply a concept that doesn't exist.
The only real question in is in #2: When combat starts, do you start with your action slots available or do you start with your action slots not available? Simply from a balancing viewpoint you might argue the answer should be "no". Why should people with higher initiative be punished after all? When I try to RAW, however, I think the answer that WotC intended is "yes". Nothing states you can't use your reaction until your first turn. On the contrary, it was made clear that if and only if you are surprised, you can't use a reaction until your first turn. If this was the normal situation, why state it in the first place? |
| (Reply to #29)Bloodscythe |
|
| #31guachiMay 02, 2015 22:25:40 |
|
| #32reddaemonMay 02, 2015 23:27:33 |
|
| (Reply to #31)ArialBlack |
|
| #34guachiMay 03, 2015 0:30:15 | The rules don't support that each combatant has their own personal round. Nowhere does it talk about personal rounds. Page 189 is fairly clear that the round starts with the person with highest initiative and ends when everyone has taken a turn. Round ends. Start over. "Your round" is not a phrase that appears anywhere in the rules. Ever. There is only one round ocurring at a time in combat. Not a round for each participant. If everyone had their own personal round than the phrase "start of your next turn" could be replaced everywhere with "start of your next round".
Was this ever clarified anywhere? |
| #35AndrewJOMay 03, 2015 0:30:56 | We've already determined that you get 1 reaction between the start of 1 turn and the start of the next turn. So it seems like the question is, does a character get a reaction at the start of combat before their turn? The PHB doesn't say that a character has 1 reaction per round or turn, it simply says that if you use a reaction you can't use another reaction until the start of your next turn. So as long as you aren't surprised, in the first round of combat you can take a reaction, take your turn, then take another reaction, allowing 2 reactions in that round. |
| #36reddaemonMay 03, 2015 0:54:26 |
|
| (Reply to #34)Macv12 |
|
| #38jaelisMay 03, 2015 6:31:15 | This seems pretty simple to me. The rules are intended to be written in natural language, not legalese. "The round" is not a specific game defined term, it is just a natural way to discuss a unit of time.
In natural language, we use units of time in two ways. "The hour" could refer to a block of time starting a X o'clock and ending at X+1 o'clock. Or it could refer to a block of time starting now and ending 60 minutes from now.
In the reaction rules, either of those meanings could plausibly apply, depending how you want to think about it. Crawford tells us that they meant the second. In other places, it might mean the first. You have to tell from context, and if you can't then we can ask again. |
| #39ArialBlackMay 03, 2015 9:27:13 | 'Round' is used in two ways:-
• from the top of the Initiative order to the top of the 'next round's' Initiative order. Each round is six seconds long
• any six second span of time
The administration of a combat round relies on the Initiative score. This cycle goes from the highest rolled score to the lowest, and then cycles around to the highest again. Which of the two definitions of 'round' does this satisfy?
It satisfies both!
Lets imagine that the game strictly defined 'round' as the first definition only. What effect would that have on the game?
We've already discussed that one effect would be that the person who was first to react to hostilities is now forevermore immune to readied actions, and the guy who was the last to begin can never take his readied action.
Spells with a casting time of '1round' would vanish before they affected the game world if cast by the combatant with the lowest initiative score. When he cast blade ward then his damage resistance would appear and vanish before he could possibly be attacked.
If he cast chill touch then the time that the target would be unable to regain hit points would be zero.
If he cast colour spray then affected creatures would be blind for zero time.
If he cast command then a target that failed its save would be okay, because the spell would end before its next turn.
But wait! That's not how the game actually treats 'rounds'.
Blade ward has a duration of '1 round', which is defined in the text of the spell as 'Until the end of your next turn...'
Chill touch has a duration of '1 round', which is defined in the text of the spell as '...until the start of your next turn.'
Command has a duration of '1 round', which is defined in the text of the spell as affecting a creature that fails its save '...on its next turn', which is within the same six second span of time between the caster's turn and the caster's next turn.
Mao the game rules, as written, completely understand that the second definition (a six second span of time) is how the game works. The initiative count is a span of six seconds, and when referring to the initiative count 'round' means each individual cycle of initiative. When referring to what each combatant may do in 'one round', it refers to the six second span of time from thT creature's turn until that creature's next turn.
Try it for yourself! Look at each instance first one way then the other. One way makes consistent sense, the other creates paradoxes.
When the rules were written, this was so obvious a truth that the writer made an assumption that we all understood this. This way of understanding 'round' was actually explicit in 3rd edition, and since the writer played that edition for years, and has kept the continuing initiative cycle from that edition (as opposed to returning to the idea of re-rolling initiative each 'combat round' like in 1st and 2nd ed), then it's such a natural part of play that it never occurred to him that it needed to be written explicitly.
Still, it is definitely implicit in the way the rules are actually written. |
| #40NoctaemMay 03, 2015 10:42:45 | Thank you for your well thought out post ArialBlack. I agree with you on everything you said as far as I can tell. And for the record, this way of using rounds was also used in 4th edition. Nay sayers should very carefully examine what they are claiming after reading your post. |
| #41guachiMay 03, 2015 12:35:46 |
|
| (Reply to #39)Bloodscythe |
|
| #43ArialBlackMay 04, 2015 8:25:13 | 'The round ends', says the book. Yep. That round does, indeed, end.
But that round isn't the only round.
'Round', as a game term, is defined on p189 0f the PHB, under the heading, 'The Order of Combat'. It says:-
'A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world.' (the bolding in the book represents where a game term is mentioned. This is the game's definition of the term 'round'; a 6 second span of time)
'During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn.' (note that this is true for both the 'combat round is the only round in the game' interpretation AND the 'round is a six second span of time' interpretation)
'The order of turns is determined at the beginning of a combat encounter, when everyone rolls initiative.' (still satisfies both interpretations)
'Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other.' (still satisfies both interpretastions)
The 'combat round' described here is definitely a six second span of time, and you can certainly measure a six second span of time from the top of the initiative order to the top of the initiative order in the next cycle. But this does not preclude other 'six second spans of time' from being called a 'round' in game terms.
When the rules refer to a 'round', they refer to whichever six second span of time that is relevant for that rule. When the rules tell you how the initiative cycle works, then 'round' refers to that particular six second span of time, from the top of one initiative pass to the next.
When the rules refer to an action taken by a creature on its turn, 'round' refers to that particular six second span of time, from that turn to the same creature's next turn. The rules are already written this way. They are 'rules as written'.
In fact, the type of 'round' where the game uses the top of the initiative cycle as the start/end point of a six second span, is only relevant when refering to itself, to the initiative scores. The only purpose of initiative scores is to determine the order creatures take their turns. The initiative score has no effect on the game world. The score does not represent any unit of time. You cannot say that the period between the initiative count of 17 and the count of 4 represents 2.5 seconds or something. Once the scores are rolled, they are used to determine the order that creatues take their turns, and when you know the order then you can throw those initiative scores away because they have no game effect outside establishing that order.
The upshot is that going from the lowest score of one initiative pass to the highest score in the next pass has absolutely no effect on the game whatsoever! Why? Because everything done by a creature that has a duration in 'rounds', whether spell, reaction, readied action, or any other thing in the game measured in rounds, is measured in six second spans of time! And those spans of time begin when they come into play (which is on a particular creature's turn) and end in some multiple of six second spans later (which is on the same creatue's turn). They don't wink out of existence as the initiative pass recycles, because that round, that six second span of time, is a different six second span of time covering a different thing, specifically the order in which combatants take their turns.
You don't even need to count the rounds. Just have a 3x5 inch card for each combatant. When the initiative rolls have established the order, then put those cards in order, and cycle round them, turn by turn, until combat ends. There is no 'beginning' or 'end' of a combat round that has any actual effect on the game, just what creatures do on their turns. |
| (Reply to #43)Bloodscythe |
|
| #45jaelisMay 04, 2015 11:33:32 |
|
| (Reply to #44)Coredump00 |
|
| #47OoftaMegMay 04, 2015 12:20:44 | A round is defined as a span of time lasting roughly 6 seconds. A "combat round" is not the same as a "round". It's similar to how an "attack action" is different from an "attack".
If wording is fuzzy or controversial, how hard is it to look at the rules and make a common sense decision? If you follow the interpretation that the round starts with the first person to go and ends with the last, the person with the lowest initiative could never effectively ready an action.
Does that make any sense? No? Maybe that's an indication that there's a misunderstanding of the rules. The rules could have also been more clearly spelled out. |
| (Reply to #47)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #46)Bloodscythe |
|
| #50DreadnoghtMay 04, 2015 15:32:53 |
|
| #51ArialBlackMay 04, 2015 20:45:26 | I did quote the entire paragraph which contains the game definition of 'round'. However, only one sentence actually defines a 'round': a six second span of time.
Since this chapter is about combat, it needs to cover certain subjects in an order that makes sense to a person reading that chapter for the purpose of understanding how combat works in the game.
First, it defines what a 'round' is, because this is how 'turns' are organised.
Then it defines initiative, and tells us that this creates the order in which turns are taken.
Then it tells us that when all combatants have had their turn, a new round starts.
It should come as no surprise that the particular six second span of time mentioned when the game talks about the initiative cycle, is the six second span of time starting with the first combatant in the initiative order! This doesn't mean that the only six second span of time that is called a 'round' in the game refers to this exact six seconds. The 'round' the rules mention, whenever they mention it, is the round/six second span of time governing whatever rule they are talking about.
So in the section about the initiative order, 'round' is the six second span of time covering each combatant's first turn.
In the section on actions/reactions/readied actions, 'round' is the six second span starting with the turn in which that action was taken.
In the section about spells and their durations, 'round' is the six second span of time starting with the turn in which the spell is cast.
The entire set of rules treats 'round' in this way. The fact that the initiative section uses the six second span of time covering an initiative cycle should not be a surprise, nor taken as the only possible six second span of time called a 'round', especially when there are examples in the book which uses 'round' to mean a six second span of time counting from the turn a spell is cast.
All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles. All initiative cycles are a six second span of time called a 'round', but not all six second spans of time called 'rounds' equate to the top of one initiative cycle to the top of the next.
And the rules do not suggest that they are. |
| (Reply to #49)Coredump00 |
|
| #53jonathonhawkeMay 04, 2015 22:50:36 |
|
| (Reply to #52)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #54)OoftaMeg |
|
| (Reply to #55)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #56)ArialBlack |
|
| (Reply to #57)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #58)ArialBlack |
|
| (Reply to #59)Bloodscythe |
|
| #61reddaemonMay 05, 2015 11:03:57 | The horse is dead guys... |
| (Reply to #60)ArialBlack |
|
| (Reply to #61)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #62)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #64)OoftaMeg |
|
| (Reply to #65)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #66)OoftaMeg |
|
| (Reply to #53)Dreadnoght |
|
| #69jonathonhawkeMay 05, 2015 16:22:22 | The rule for Reactions is: "When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn" (PHB page 190, under Reactions). Nowhere in this rule does it say that you can only take one Reaction in a (first initiative through last initiative) round.
This means that if you have not taken a Reaction since your last turn, you can use it before your turn. You can then use another Reaction after your turn starts, even if it's in the same (first initiative through last initiative) round. |
| (Reply to #61)Coredump00 |
|
| (Reply to #67)Bloodscythe |
|
| (Reply to #69)Dreadnoght |
|
| #73jonathonhawkeMay 06, 2015 11:56:53 |
|
| #74OrethalionMay 06, 2015 13:04:50 |
|