itmeJP Community


itmeJP Community

Ready Action, Monster, PC and Balance Magic/CQC

RollPlay: General & Archives
#1

So there was some questionning about the Multiattack Readied Action on EP9 Q&A, so let’s clear all of that GMing Lawyering shall we :itmejpgmlol::itmejpgmref:

The Rule Lawyering

PHB p.193 : “you can take the Ready action on your turn so that you can
act later in the round using your reaction (…) you choose the action
you will take in response to that trigger”

So the reaction is used for the trigger and it activates the action (in this situation, it’s an attack p.192)
It is explained that for a spell, the casting time must be of an action, therefore the type of action of the Ready Attack is a standard action.

Now let’s take a look at the Extra Attack descr. of the PC p.72 under the Fighter Class Feature List.
“Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of
once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.”
So when it’s my turn to act, I can use the Attack action and use Extra Attack. But if I use the Ready Action on my turn, it is not technically the Attack action. :thinking:
If I trigger the Attack action later, it won’t be on my turn it will be on the turn of the ennemie that triggers the action.

Let’s see if it apllies for monsters.
MM p.11 under Mutliattack
“A creature that can make multiple attacks on its
turn has the Multiattack ability. A creature can’t use
Multiattack when making an opportunity attack, which
must be a single melee attack.”

##Let Me Stop You Right Here Sir

I too disagree with this rule. When Legolas shoot 3 arrows in 6sec, if he waits for an ennemy, ofc he can shoot them 3 times. Espacially if they suddendly see an elf with a bow drawn. “Yes but if the ennemie is moving it’s harder” Let me stop you right here sir, in a combat people don’t just stay still when it’s not their turn. It is reflected by their AC.
So that is the logic thought process.

But their is a mechanical thought process about balance to. And it’s about … MAGIC
If a wizard Ready a Finger of Death and use his turn at Full capacity, why would the Hand to Hand PCs/Monsters cannot do that too ? “Spells use resources” Okay yeah, what about Eldritch Blast mutli rays ?
Playing a Hand to Hand Class is boring enough I think, and if we want to make powerful strategies let’s not nerf the only action that is 50% of the strats you can make :smiley:
And with that said, let’s all agree that with that houserule, MOAR :adammrdr::adamhobo: will occur on Surprise rounds and Retreat Strats :smiling_imp:

Now for all the Hardcore By the Rule Roleplayers, you’re right. It is writen down, in a strange manner as always, but it’s there.

What are your thoughts on Houseruling in game, with obscur rules like this ?
If you have unexperienced players, would you explain this specific houserule beforehand or would you show them in game ?
What do you think about the balance mechanic for the Ready Action ? (I’m no Gamedesigner so y’know)

#2

I think it’s good that Adam has made that ruling before the players get Extra Attack as a feature. It’s best for everyone to play by the same rules.

I think it kind of sucks for the players right now because this is an added benefit that is only going to favor monsters/enemies, as it seems it will be awhile before they hit level 5 and get their own extra attacks. An added empowerment to the monsters in an already tough campaign is rough. It’ll even out at level 5 should they get there.

#3

Stop.

You’re comparing, “What a fake person can do in a movie that will take liberties with what can be physically possible” with “A tabletop game the operates on rules and boundaries of what you can and can’t do.” Why stop there? Why not recite any work of fiction as a reason to go against RAW? “Well, in Equilibrium, Christian Bale can use Gun-Fu, so there’s no reason you can’t shoot in melee without incurring disadvantage.”

I assume you mean, “If a wizard can ready a finger of death and use his reaction at full capacity”. If that’s the case, then the reasons are simple.

  1. He has to use his turn to cast the spell, and hold the energy

  2. He can’t maintain concentration on other spells, because the act of readying a spell requires concentration

  3. The trigger still has to activate because…

  4. If the trigger doesn’t occur, he loses the spell.

Also the balancing of eldritch blast is that you still require an attack roll for each beam. Assuming you take Agonizing Blast, it almost mirrors the same thing a fighter can do. The only difference being is that Warlock gets 4 attacks at 17 compared to the fighter’s 20.

Except that compared to other editions of D&D and Pathfinder, it’s much better. The power/tier discrepancy between magic users and martial classes has gone WAY down. The two major contributors are one, feats are optional, and aren’t required to increase a martial classes’ power and two, the new spellcasting rules, namely the abundance of spells requiring concentration.

1 Like
#4

Absolutely, yes. They’ll get the advantage of this when we get bonus attacks for them, for sure.

1 Like
#5

True 5th is by far the most balanced version of D&D so far.

What I was getting at with the apparent Legolas Blasphem with a more logical representation :
X can do Y in 6 sec.
if X is delayed 6 sec, X can still do Y in 6 sec.

I forgot the Web Scanning Reading rule !
I’m bad at naming my variables sorry for the trigger :itmejplol:

#6

Except X is not doing Y (when it comes to reaction) within 6 seconds. 6 seconds represents an entire turn. Moving does not take the entire 6 seconds. If that’s entirely the only thing they do, then I’d argue that 6 seconds can be narratively interpreted a different way - maybe Z pauses to think. maybe Z is unsure, and doesn’t run to the position they end up running to the position where X’s trigger goes off. Similarly, maybe X needs to identify the target or is unsure about the action he wants to do, so the trigger may not even happen, as you can still choose to ignore the trigger.

#7

Adam is the DM and he is allowed to change the rules any way he likes. However it is fact that you cannot ready a multiattack. There really is no argument for discussion here guys. It clearly says multiattack has to happen on your turn.

1 Like
#8

Yeah, I agree with that :itmejplol::itmejpgg:
It can be led to lots of interpretations.
Where X is experienced enough to have faster reflexes or wtv :smile:
Fortunatly the DM has the last word !

#9

With regard to the quote about opportunity attacks:

I think it makes sense that an attack made using a reaction in conjunction with your normal attack series (multiattack for monsters, etc.) or other action should only be a single strike instead of your full series. It prevents certain specific exploits, like [moving into melee -> spending an action to use an ability (spell or other sort of “push”, etc.) -> using your opportunity reaction to unleash your full action series].

However, I do agree that holding an action should allow your full action series on your reaction. Just don’t allow it for opportunity attacks.

#10

You use ready as an action and then can use your reaction to act later on the defined trigger.

The exploit you think of here would not work as opportunity attacks are already limited to one attack.

#11

When it comes to readied attacks not allowing you to use extra attacks I can’t work out if it is intentionally supposed to work that way, and if it is, WHY would anyone want it to work that way?

One difference between 5th ed which and 3.5 and pathfinder
[spoiler]they chucked out much of the good and bad in 4th so 3.5 is my basis for comparison[/spoiler]
Is that you cannot delay your turn. This is an intentional change.

This speeds up the pace of the game and forces players to make decisions and deal with their turns rather than wait for the perfect moment. I think this is a very good change.

Instead of the “delay” action we have the “ready” action.

The action has inherent drawbacks to it

  • You specify a trigger and if the trigger doesn’t go off you have “wasted” your action
  • You can fail with spells if interupted [spoiler]which helps balance spells[/spoiler]
  • It requires your reaction. [spoiler]so you have to give it up to take a “reaction action” like an opportunity attack[/spoiler]

Situationally however it can be a good option,
You it can allow you to be safe or maintain good positioning
You can avoid exposing yourself to danger and set a trap
You can do something narrative that would require a trigger.

From levels 1-4 [spoiler](disallowing two weapon fighting or spell quirks or misc quirks)[/spoiler]
You get 1 attack and you may ready an attack.

The penalty to readying an action is the “reaction action” cost and the chance of the trigger not happening. This is a trade off and it is significant, but often worthwhile.

From level 5 onward [spoiler](or with two weapon fighting)[/spoiler]
You get 2 to eventually 4/5 attacks per round. If you can only take 1 attack by readying an attack you give up 50-80% of your damage output [spoiler](this can be mitigated partially by sneak attack or divine smite +misc damage boost for 1 attack)[/spoiler]

The penalty for taking the action is HUGE! It is big enough that the “ready action” pretty much isn’t a viable option to take during combat. It effectively remove the “ready action” option from the players and depth from the combat.

So why would they, the designers do this?

The reasons that spring to mind are:

  • They want aggressive action to be more rewarding >going out and attacking rather than laying in wait
  • They dont want you to delay your turn so they made it’s replacement suck
  • They want you to use the ready action primarily for narrative and improvised type actions, not for attacking things.
  • It could be unintentional
1 Like
#12


Key point: That’s correct. Multiattack and Attack are different actions.

Why can one simply not ready the multiattack action?

Also as frustrating as the last thread was and as much as I do not want to get into it

This is a distinctly different angle

[details=I am not replying to further statements about this spoiler]Multiattack and Extra attack are intentionally worded differently and they are not the same.

Being able to take multiple attacks GIVES you multiattack. It is not the definition of multiattack.

Yes the game badly explains itself. The designers intent may be different to what the wording says. You may disagree with what I am saying. But what I am saying IS logically consistent with itself.[/details]

1 Like
#13

Yes. I was explicitly referencing the bit about opportunity attacks that was mentioned in the original post as it was being compared to hold action. The question is whether a character should be able to use their full attack sequence on a reaction if they hold action (which the book apparently says they shouldn’t), and I’m saying that rule should only apply to opportunity attacks to prevent the exploit if anyone decides to permit the full attack sequence on a reaction hold.

#14

Calling it a penalty is exactly why your mindset is wrong. You’re not penalized for readying an action because if the only time you’d want to be taking it is to get a much better result than actually using the action you wanted to (IE, Reading your 2+ attacks to hit someone you already could hit as opposed to just attacking them 2+ times), then it’s make that action weaker in comparison. Also there’s a bit of degree in metagaming because if you look at the turn order and see, “Yeah, I can get away with 6~ attacks without being harmed because I’m next up”

The only people that benefit from this ruling is those that use range attacks. Lets say that the battlefield is completely open with no difficult terrain or impassible areas (pits, rivers, etc), and manticore made a readied action to multiattack the first creature within 100ft, the max distance he can fire his tail spikes before incurring disadvantage. That’s 3 attacks. What movement the target has left is irrelevant, because on the manticore’s turn, he can move back to max range, and lob 3 more attacks. That’s 6. Next turn, with the exception of a monk who uses his turn to move, dash action, then spends a ki to dash again as a bonus, the manticore can fly back 50 feet, meaning that you would of only advanced 10 ft (40 for rogues). If at ANY POINT, the target is weak enough, the manticore can easily chase (vs most classes) and kill the weakened target.

This also ruins anyone who wishes to take the disengage action in melee because technically, “It’s not an opportunity attack.”

No. You’re wrong. Period. End of story. That’s all she wrote. Fat lady has retired from singing and is surrounded by her surviving family on her death bed. Just because you can’t interpret it well, even when it’s staring you right in the face and explained to you, along with how the rest of the game is designed and how it reflects on the rest of the game, doesn’t mean that it changes. If you DM, you can argue, “Well it’s my game so I can set this rule” all you want, which are within your rights, but you wouldn’t get away with, “Well the rules are vague…”

#15

If all you took from that post is that “my mindset is wrong” there is no point pretending to have a discussion because there isn’t one. There isn’t even a need to say that you my mindset is wrong, if you want a discussion it’s counter productive.

example of a bad discussion:
Person A I think this and this is why
Person B Fuck you, you total moron, I think this

You are not engaging me in good faith, stop replying to my posts.

#16

And if all you took from that is, “Fuck you, you total moron”, then the only thing you are right about is there’s no point in pretending to have a discussion, because you don’t want one. It’s not my job to make sure every single thing I say won’t bust through your thin skin so instead of arguing my points, you focus on the low-hanging fruit and twist it into an egregious, discussion halting insult of why you won’t (or can’t) continue the actual discussion.

I really am trying to be nice, but I don’t understand why you’re here when you say the last thread was “frustrating”, you “do not want to get into it” and “I am not replying to further statements about this spoiler.”

#18

When I’m not saying the things I want to say, I’m trying to be nice. The attempt is there.

#19

I think it’s okay to disagree with someone, but you can’t have a debate by having such aggressive punchlines. Franckly, if you remove those negative sentences it would be healthier and more enjoyable for everyone to read :smile:

I’m sure you’re a nice guy, and even if some debates can be frustrating you have to keep your cool. Otherwise we’ll think you’re a meanie :worried:

1 Like
#20

Yeah I think you’re right. And I also think that’s why Adam ruled against it ! The campaign being based on Deadly/Hard encounters, being more aggressive can be really punishing

#22

Hey everyone,

Keep this civil. There are far too many aggressive and rude opinions, and yes they are opinions, being thrown out here. Remember the old rule, if you can’t say something nice, don’t saying anything at all. Also, keep in mind that your intentions don’t come across in text very well.

And finally I will leave you with this. It is just one opinion, but something we should all be aware of:

EDIT: Hey guys, sorry if this came across as an attack on anyone participating. It was not meant as such. Just hoping we can keep things positive and civil in our discussions :itmejpheart:

4 Likes