For Discussion: Reactions.

[pneumatik]

Between a ready and a reaction, I think PCs can do anything. Essentially they can delay their standard action an arbitrary amount of time after they take their move. At least, I can't see any type of (non-restricted) standard action a PC can't take.

Game-mechanically I'd be worried about this slowing down the game. I think it would make it harder to close into melee because reactions make eliminate the risk of a readied action to attack an opponent when they close with you goes away. Instead you pick a reaction. If someone closes to melee with you, you react by attacking them. If something better comes up to react to, you react to that. I've read that concerns over slowing down combat too much is one of the reasons why the designers make you provoke an AoO when you move away from an enemy instead of when you approach them.

More generally, I've found it more helpful to think of combat as cyclical, not simultaneous. I think it's a more gamist than a simultaneous-action interpretation, but I think it really fits the rules better as they're written. With the cyclical interpretation there's no concern that the game doesn't model the simultaneity well, because there's no simultaneity to model. I'm not saying your view is wrong or bad, it's just that I don't see the same problem you do.

 

[Water Bob]

So why couldn't a guy with a bow shoot a badguy who came through the door and sorta moved in his direction?

Because the limitation on the Reaction is that it is reactionary. It is not proactive. Any proactive actions, a character has to do on his action or use the Ready or Delay actions.

Ready and Delay are not replaced by the Reaction. Reaction only takes over some of the duties of the Ready Action.

What about a spellcaster - could he cast a Shocking Grasp spell if someone started coming towards him? What about a Fireball? Confusion?

That's a good question. I would say that no distance attacks could be used, like the bow. But, as long as the casting time of the spell was a Standard Action or shorter, I don't see a reason why a spellcaster couldn't use Shocking Grasp on (I don't know it's casting time--I don't use those spells in my game) on a foe that approaches him. It's a touch spell, yes?

This concept works for me. I imagine Reaction to be a player saying, "Ok, I've moved on my turn, and as my Ready Action, I'm going to be paying attention to anything coming at me so I can do something about it."

Exactly.

"That monster is attacking my Ally over there. Doesn't affect me, so doesn't apply."

Yep.

"That Bandit just jumped out from behind that tree over there. He's looking at me and shouting, but otherwise not approaching. I can't shoot him with my bow in my hand."

Yep.

~Limits of 'Reaction'. Am I getting this right?

Sounds to me like you've got it exactly.

Between a ready and a reaction, I think PCs can do anything. Essentially they can delay their standard action an arbitrary amount of time after they take their move. At least, I can't see any type of (non-restricted) standard action a PC can't take.

With the Ready action, the PC has to name, specifically, what he will do and how his action is triggered.

With the Reaction, the PC does not have to name his action, but his action must be reactionary--in reaction to a threat--and the trigger is the threat on the PC.

See RUMBLETiGER's examples above. Those things are not reactionary to a personal threat. Someone charging you or engaging you in melee are reactionary.

Game-mechanically I'd be worried about this slowing down the game.

Fair comment. But, I don't think so. Here's why.

1 - Since there is no declaration with the Reaction, there's no slowing down the game there because the player isn't thinking about it.

2 - Since the Reaction is reactionary, you never worry about it unless a character who only performed a Move earlier in the round is attacked. If he's not attacked, the Reaction is triggered.



I envision a combat round to play out like this:

Fred has nish. He moves ahead 20 feet, scouting for the party. He's alert, looking, smelling, listening for trouble.

A goblin breaks from the bush, screaming and mashing his teeth, charging Fred.

Fred slams the end of his spear down to the ground as goblin runs towards him. He locks his foot over it, then braces the spear, shoving it in front of him just as the goblin gets to him.



In game terms: Fred made a Move action of 20'.

Then it was the goblin's turn, who saw Fred and charged him.

Since this is a threat to Fred, he can use a Reaction by setting his spear for the charge.

As the goblin approches, Fred attacks first. By the rules, he gets automatic double damage if he hits (setting a spear for a charge). If he misses, well, he didn't react quick enough in time. Now, the goblin proceeds with his charge attack.





One thought: We could limit the Reaction further to only melee attacks if a weapon is at the ready (not in a sheath).

So, the Reaction could be a melee attack or the setting of a weapon for a charge, but nothing else.

Thoughts on that?

I think it would make it harder to close into melee because reactions make eliminate the risk of a readied action to attack an opponent when they close with you goes away.

In RL, it is generally harder to attack than to defend.

instead you pick a reaction. If someone closes to melee with you, you react by attacking them. If something better comes up to react to, you react to that. I've read that concerns over slowing down combat too much is one of the reasons why the designers make you provoke an AoO when you move away from an enemy instead of when you approach them.

What Fred did above can be done by the RAW. He would simply move 20' feet then Ready an action to attack any foe that attacks him in melee. He wouldn't get the double damage (unless he Readied to defend against a charge)...

....but it seems to me that, if you're readied for a charge, you're not that far away from attacking someone who is not charging you but engaging you in regular melee.



Here's another thought: What if you threw away the Reaction action alltogether, but, instead, made a special type of Ready action that allowed you to either attack someone who approached you or set your weapon for a charge.

This way, the rules really aren't changed--you've just broadened a Ready Action. You can attack someone who approaches for melee or you can set for a charge--your choice (because you should have a choice since you have nish).

More generally, I've found it more helpful to think of combat as cyclical, not simultaneous. I think it's a more gamist than a simultaneous-action interpretation, but I think it really fits the rules better as they're written. With the cyclical interpretation there's no concern that the game doesn't model the simultaneity well, because there's no simultaneity to model. I'm not saying your view is wrong or bad, it's just that I don't see the same problem you do.

Well said. And, to be clear, I'm not saying that I see a problem. I'm just investigating something my player said when I was teaching him the Ready Action.

In that discussion, I was the one taking the gamist approach, saying, "Your turn is over!" And, he was saying, "So...what did my character do...just move out into the field and stand there as he saw someone charging him?"

And, he continued, "I have nish. I should have the advantage. So, I should be able to react to a charge. I can see the guy coming at me--but by using this turn method, I don't know as a player what my character would know after one second of looking at the battlefield."

My player has a point. I'm investigating if there is a good solution, or if I should stick with the RAW.





EDIT: I'm 95% sure I'll stick with the RAW. But, I also may revisit this idea later, once I feel I have a better comand over the 3.5 rules.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I like the reaction mechanic (ie, if you have a standard action open, you can react to danger by using a move or a standard action). I have a version of it already (magicians can "reactively ward" against attacks), but it's very specific. Having a broad "reaction" mechanic might be nice (this way magicians can "reactively ward" while their mundane companions can "reactively attack" or the like).

Although, attacks in my game are opposed (much like your Conan), though if your roll beats the aggressor by enough, you actually hit him instead of him hitting you. So, if that goblin charged, and you beat his roll by 10 or more, you actually hit him instead. I'm not sure how necessary free melee attacks are in this scenario, but it's something to consider (I also have 10 second rounds, which allows for more attacks to be theoretically packed in without too much trouble).

 

[pneumatik]

Huh? Where are the nested quotes in my quote of your post? Anyway...

Fair comment. But, I don't think so. Here's why.

1 - Since there is no declaration with the Reaction, there's no slowing down the game there because the player isn't thinking about it.

2 - Since the Reaction is reactionary, you never worry about it unless a character who only performed a Move earlier in the round is attacked. If he's not attacked, the Reaction is triggered.

My worry is that players would feel like they can never finish their turns. Instead of going once, more characters would go twice, a move and a reaction. But that's tempered now that I see there are things you can't do with either a reaction or a ready.

I envision a combat round to play out like this:

Fred has nish. He moves ahead 20 feet, scouting for the party. He's alert, looking, smelling, listening for trouble.

A goblin breaks from the bush, screaming and mashing his teeth, charging Fred.

Fred slams the end of his spear down to the ground as goblin runs towards him. He locks his foot over it, then braces the spear, shoving it in front of him just as the goblin gets to him.



In game terms: Fred made a Move action of 20'.

Then it was the goblin's turn, who saw Fred and charged him.

Since this is a threat to Fred, he can use a Reaction by setting his spear for the charge.

As the goblin approches, Fred attacks first. By the rules, he gets automatic double damage if he hits (setting a spear for a charge). If he misses, well, he didn't react quick enough in time. Now, the goblin proceeds with his charge attack.

Do you need reactions for this, though? If you're a little flexible with ready actions, "attacking the first monster within reach" could potentially mean setting for charge. TBH, the rules for setting for a charge aren't good.

One thought: We could limit the Reaction further to only melee attacks if a weapon is at the ready (not in a sheath).

So, the Reaction could be a melee attack or the setting of a weapon for a charge, but nothing else.

Thoughts on that?

See what I wrote right above here.

In RL, it is generally harder to attack than to defend.

You said this in response to my comment that reactions would make it generally harder to close to melee. I don't disagree, and it makes sense, but it discourages PCs from closing to melee which makes combat more cautious and less exciting. I would expect, anyway.

Here's another thought: What if you threw away the Reaction action alltogether, but, instead, made a special type of Ready action that allowed you to either attack someone who approached you or set your weapon for a charge.

This way, the rules really aren't changed--you've just broadened a Ready Action. You can attack someone who approaches for melee or you can set for a charge--your choice (because you should have a choice since you have nish).

I think that's a fine idea.

Well said. And, to be clear, I'm not saying that I see a problem. I'm just investigating something my player said when I was teaching him the Ready Action.

In that discussion, I was the one taking the gamist approach, saying, "Your turn is over!" And, he was saying, "So...what did my character do...just move out into the field and stand there as he saw someone charging him?"

And, he continued, "I have nish. I should have the advantage. So, I should be able to react to a charge. I can see the guy coming at me--but by using this turn method, I don't know as a player what my character would know after one second of looking at the battlefield."

My player has a point. I'm investigating if there is a good solution, or if I should stick with the RAW.

If the goblin is hiding successfully, then it's essentially stealing initiative with stealth. By taking a full move the PC is spending all his time moving and very little staying ready for an ambush. Taking a move plus a ready action each round would be more cautious.

If the goblin is visible then the PC needs to still be cautious, but a little differently. Full moving into the goblin's charge range would be moving headlong into battle without worrying about exposing yourself to attack from your target. A standard move plus a ready would be more cautious. Once the PC's close enough to charge the goblin, he's now close enough to run up to the goblin and attack it before it can respond (unless it's being cautious and readying actions on its own).

Okay, so that always sounded better when I thought it to myself than when I'm reading it now.

 

[Greenfield]

What you're describing is Hold Action.

When you Ready action, you're primed and looking for a specific thing. The benefit is that you get to react so fast that you actually interrupt the other guy's action.

In theory, you could say, "I Ready a Move for when that archer attacks", wait for the arrow to be in mid-air, then pretty much be 30 feet away from where the arrow is hitting. I don't know a DM who would let you get away with it, but by RAW it's legal.

But if you're trying to watch in all directions at once, prepared to dodge to the side, brace a spear for a charge, cast a spell or take an AoO on anyone who passes within reach, you don't get to react quite so fast. You can't be hair-trigger ready to do all those things (or whatever else the situation may call for).

You want to hold the line against a charge? You need your feet planted, and your spear in a particular position.

You want to duck behind the desk if the teacher comes in? Feet planted is not the stance you need.

Want to cast a spell? How will you do that, quick as a hiccup, if you don't know which spell you're going to cast, your materials are still in your pouch and you've got two hands full of longspear?

Hold Action lets you respond to anything, and allows you to take a full round action when the time comes, but you're responding to the situation, not interrupting it.

I could see a looser approach to Ready, as in "I Ready for someone to come through that doorway. I'll either attack, or scream and run, depending on what it is."

 

[Water Bob]

What you're describing is Hold Action.

You mean Delay Action?

And, not quite, since the character is moving on his normal nish and then waiting on is Standard Action--except that the Standard Action can be a defensive move only, triggered as a reaction to a threat.

With the Delay, you'll take your entire action for the round, both the Move and Standard actions alloted you, later in the round.

I could see a looser approach to Ready, as in "I Ready for someone to come through that doorway. I'll either attack, or scream and run, depending on what it is."

I'm leaning towards not using the Reaction idea, keeping it RAW, but maybe having a default ruling to the tune of something like this: If you take a Move action and end your turn, it is assumed, without the player having to state it, that the character is performing a Ready Action to attack the first foe that comes into threat range.

Of course, this will not cover setting for a charge. I think my players will still have to indicate that, if they want to do it.





Yet, one question remains: If you make a Ready Action to set for a charge, and your foe does not charge you but does move to engage you in melee--should the GM be a hard-ass and say, "Whelp, he didn't charge you, so your Ready action isn't triggered."

Or, should your GM be logical and say, "He didn't charge you, but instead moved in for standard melee. You won't get double damage if you hit, because he's not charging you, but you can still attempt first strike against him."

I'm thinking the latter.

 

[Greenfield]

I don't see how you can say that you'll use the Reaction idea, which is not in RAW, and at the same time say you'll use RAW.

Personally, I'd probably run it a bit loose. Player says, "I Move to the line, then Ready to take on anyone who comes at me." With that kind of action described I'd let him set against a charge, or take a normal attack, so long as it fits the general description he laid out.

As noted in my earlier post, I wouldn't let him Ready an action, then decide whether to set his spear, shoot his bow, drink a potion, duck for cover, etc, nor Ready for "when something happens". You want that lightning quick response, you have to prepare yourself properly.

 

[Water Bob]

I don't see how you can say that you'll use the Reaction idea, which is not in RAW, and at the same time say you'll use RAW.

I said I probably wouldn't use the Reaction idea and stick with RAW. Where are you getting the opposite?

Personally, I'd probably run it a bit loose. Player says, "I Move to the line, then Ready to take on anyone who comes at me." With that kind of action described I'd let him set against a charge, or take a normal attack, so long as it fits the general description he laid out.

In my last post, the last question lead to this, with me leaning towards something in the middle. If the player does a Ready action to set for a charge, I'd allow him to do a normal attack if his foe does not charge. But, I wouldn't do it the other way around to where, if the player Readies an attack on a foe that enters his threat zone, I wouldn't let him turn this attack into a set for a charge.

 

[Greenfield]

Mea culpa, I mis read.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Because the limitation on the Reaction is that it is reactionary. It is not proactive. Any proactive actions, a character has to do on his action or use the Ready or Delay actions.

I guess what I'm saying is that this distinction is pretty meaningless to me. I don't understand how "shooting someone with a bow" is "proactive" or "overt," while "hitting someone with a sword" is "reactive."

Especially give that, below, "cast a spell" is either "reactive" or "proactive" depending on what spell it is.

I don't have a rubric that lets me look at any given action and determine [easily, clearly, and indisputably] whether or not it would be allowable as a Reaction, and your explanations haven't clarified it for me, yet.

(I don't know it's casting time--I don't use those spells in my game) on a foe that approaches him. It's a touch spell, yes?

Standard action, touch spell.

Here's another thought: What if you threw away the Reaction action alltogether, but, instead, made a special type of Ready action that allowed you to either attack someone who approached you or set your weapon for a charge.

You mean, kinda like the way the rules work now?

The only "change," and I use this in my games, is that "Readying vs. a charge" isn't distinct from "readying to attack when someone approaches me."

If you do the latter, and you've got a "braceable" weapon, and the other guy is charging, you can attack and do double damage. If not all of the above are true, you still get to attack and do normal damage.

The thing is, that the rules on readying (and readying vs. a charge) are vague enough that I'm not certain that this is a rules change, so much as a clarification.

If the player does a Ready action to set for a charge, I'd allow him to do a normal attack if his foe does not charge. But, I wouldn't do it the other way around to where, if the player Readies an attack on a foe that enters his threat zone, I wouldn't let him turn this attack into a set for a charge.

Think about this, though. If by readying against a charge, you can make a normal attack, but the reverse is not true, then everyone will just ready against a charge (and make their normal attack if the charge thing doesn't work out).

No one (rationally) will ever choose to just ready an attack, because they get all the benefits of such by readying vs. a charge (and more, besides).

In effect, the ruling is meaningless; either they must remain distinct or they should be the same thing; going halfway works out the same as making them the same thing if your players are smart, and is therefore a meaningless distinction.