D&D 5E Legal Ready action triggers and order of resolution

[Corwin]

While you certainly can put more precision into the action you choose to take, who you will attack and with what etc..., it's not an obligation.

Again, you are coming across to me as sounding as if you are objectively correct and having an opinion beyond reproach. Clearly those of us who disagree with you have been pointing out how that is not the case.

Similarly, you also don't need to select the target of your spell at the moment of taking the Ready action and casting it neither.

...unless you interpret the rules as I, and those like me here, do, you mean? Because, as I read it, you *would* pre-select the target. Because "the action you will take in response to that trigger," to me, includes what you intend to do with the action you are declaring to take. You continue to read it as offering vagueness. I continue to read it as being more succinct in what it is asking of you. Because, and here is the core of my point, when you take a normal action on your turn you declare all those things. When not attempting to Ready, if you just want to shoot the rogue with your bow on your turn, you say so as your action. You aren't noncommittal. You don't say, "I will attack somebody with something."

"I ready my bow to shoot the rogue if he attempts to move." That, to me, is both RAW and RAI. The RAW interpretation I have already confessed is not crystal clear. Otherwise you would have no valid argument at all. But, RAI? Definitely. I think this is RAI. Plus, that coincides with how readying a spell works. So there is a consistency. And that's a bonus.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Again, you are coming across to me as sounding as if you are objectively correct and having an opinion beyond reproach. Clearly those of us who disagree with you have been pointing out how that is not the case.

Does the Ready action say it specifically require that you pick the type of attack, the weapon or the target for a spell or attack? No. So while you can, you don't necessarily have to when taking it, instead doing so when taking your reaction. If you think i'm not objectively correct please tell me how?

...unless you interpret the rules as I, and those like me here, do, you mean? Because, as I read it, you *would* pre-select the target. Because "the action you will take in response to that trigger," to me, includes what you intend to do with the action you are declaring to take. You continue to read it as offering vagueness. I continue to read it as being more succinct in what it is asking of you. Because, and here is the core of my point, when you take a normal action on your turn you declare all those things. When not attempting to Ready, if you just want to shoot the rogue with your bow on your turn, you say so as your action. You aren't noncommittal. You don't say, "I will attack somebody with something."

You decide who you attack and how so when basically doing so. Even the Multiattack action of a monster doesn't have to pre-select targets in advance it's been clarified on twitter. While you certainly can, you don't have to. Stating that you will attack (or move) when X happen is a sufficient way to do so, and don't necessarily need to you precise how and who you'll attack or where you will move untill comes the time to actually do so.

"I ready my bow to shoot the rogue if he attempts to move." That, to me, is both RAW and RAI. The RAW interpretation I have already confessed is not crystal clear. Otherwise you would have no valid argument at all. But, RAI? Definitely. I think this is RAI. Plus, that coincides with how readying a spell works. So there is a consistency. And that's a bonus.

Oh i think its both RAW and RAI too, but it's not the only way you can use the Ready action since it doesn't specifically require that you pick the type of attack, the weapon or the target and since it doesn't say so, you can't really say my interpretation isn't as well.

 

[Corwin]

Does the Ready action say it specifically require that you pick the type of attack, the weapon or the target for a spell or attack? No. So while you can, you don't necessarily have to when taking it, instead doing so when taking your reaction. If you think i'm not objectively correct please tell me how?

You decide who you attack and how so when basically doing so. Even the Multiattack action of a monster doesn't have to pre-select targets in advance it's been clarified on twitter. While you certainly can, you don't have to. Stating that you will attack (or move) when X happen is a sufficient way to do so, and don't necessarily need to you precise how and who you'll attack or where you will move untill comes the time to actually do so.

It feels like we are going round and round. Are you not reading what I'm typing? If you are not, it seems a waste to do so even one more time. I've repeatedly given you the courtesy of acknowledging that your reading of the rules is one way to do it. That you can't even be bothered to return the favor leads me to consider this discussion might be a waste of time.

Oh i think its both RAW and RAI too, but it's not the only way you can use the Ready action since it doesn't specifically require that you pick the type of attack, the weapon or the target and since it doesn't say so, you can't really say my interpretation isn't as well.

This baffles me. I honestly cannot reconcile your admission in the first part of this sentence with all the rest of it. If you agree it's RAW and RAI, what's the problem here? Not to mention you added "type" (bolded above) which cannot be found in the actual rule you are basing your opinion on. And that added word drastically changes the meaning and intent, IMO. In fact, your entire argument seems to be hinged on that word. Food for thought. Lastly, I think using "since it doesn't say so," when discussing the rules of the game, is a bad idea in general. That way leads to madness.

 

[Plaguescarred]

It feels like we are going round and round. Are you not reading what I'm typing? If you are not, it seems a waste to do so even one more time. I've repeatedly given you the courtesy of acknowledging that your reading of the rules is one way to do it. That you can't even be bothered to return the favor leads me to consider this discussion might be a waste of time.

I did read and even repeatedly also acknowledged that your reading was one way to do it perhaps you should re-read what i wrote if you still doubt! You're the one who came quoting me up on my assertion and i said your interpretation was one way to do it.

This baffles me. I honestly cannot reconcile your admission in the first part of this sentence with all the rest of it. If you agree it's RAW and RAI, what's the problem here? Not to mention you added "type" (bolded above) which cannot be found in the actual rule you are basing your opinion on. And that added word drastically changes the meaning and intent, IMO. In fact, your entire argument seems to be hinged on that word.

I've added the word "type" because you don't have to mention wether you make a ranged or melee attack type if you Ready to attack if the rogues moves. You are right that Ready doesn't mention which type of attack you Ready if its such action you chose, and that is even the reason why i started saying you don't even have to! You know what's vague? Choosing the action you will take in response to a trigger.....The action can be attacking and since there's no need to declare the how or which target, you can do so when taking the reaction.

Take a popular usage of the Ready action that consist of attacking an enemy popping in and out of cover. If you had to target with attack or spells when taking the Ready action rather than the reaction, you wouldn't be to do so having no clear path to the target in full cover. If you look at dispel magic exemple in Sage Advice it also doesn't select target when taking the Ready action and pre casting the spell, leaving this when he will cast it fully instead.

 

[morikahn]

It feels like we are going round and round.

You guys are. You've said all there is to say and he's not changed his position. Its time to end it. He's pretty much alone in his opinion.

 

[Plaguescarred]

You guys are. You've said all there is to say and he's not changed his position. Its time to end it. He's pretty much alone in his opinion.

He is the one who came quote me and challenge my assertion before eventually acknowledging my reading of the rules was one way to do it (and so did i for his) so why would i need to change my position? It's okay we don't always have to like or agree with all of others opinion

BTW I'm not alone in my opinion like you say since Sage Advice even says you can cast dispel magic on "anyone" the high priest would cast a spell on, proving you don't have to pre-select target in their own exemple.

 

[Arial Black]

BTW I'm not alone in my opinion like you say since Sage Advice even says you can cast dispel magic on "anyone" the high priest would cast a spell on, proving you don't have to pre-select target in their own exemple.

Yeah, the 'pre-selection' part is dependent on how you worded your trigger.

If your wording was like, 'I shoot the first baddy that I see', then you have self-selected 'baddy' as a limit to who or what will trigger your shot. Pretty wise really; you won't shoot a 'goody'.

But if you said, 'I shoot Fred as soon as I see him', then when his henchman Barney runs around the corner and charges you with an axe, you cannot shoot him. Not because Barney is not a valid target for a ranged attack but because he is not your trigger.

So even though any targeting is done at the moment of release (whether it is a spell or not), you may have self-limited the target by your wording of your trigger.

 

[morikahn]

Yeah, the 'pre-selection' part is dependent on how you worded your trigger.

If your wording was like, 'I shoot the first baddy that I see', then you have self-selected 'baddy' as a limit to who or what will trigger your shot. Pretty wise really; you won't shoot a 'goody'.

But if you said, 'I shoot Fred as soon as I see him', then when his henchman Barney runs around the corner and charges you with an axe, you cannot shoot him. Not because Barney is not a valid target for a ranged attack but because he is not your trigger.

So even though any targeting is done at the moment of release (whether it is a spell or not), you may have self-limited the target by your wording of your trigger.

I'd just like to point out, Arial Black, that it may not always be smart to generalize your triggers.

If you really want to shoot Fred and not Barney, saying, "I shoot the first bad guy I see" will mean your Ready action triggers when either Fred or Barney appear before you. If Barney is first you'll have the option to carry through on your attack. If you choose not to attack the Ready action is wasted and Fred can pop out next unscathed.

 

[jasper]

... then you have self-selected 'baddy' as a limit to who or what will trigger your shot. Pretty wise really; you won't shoot a 'goody'...... I was an adventurer just like you, until a rogue thought I was a "badly"! I took an arrow to the knee.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I'd just like to point out, Arial Black, that it may not always be smart to generalize your triggers.

If you really want to shoot Fred and not Barney, saying, "I shoot the first bad guy I see" will mean your Ready action triggers when either Fred or Barney appear before you. If Barney is first you'll have the option to carry through on your attack. If you choose not to attack the Ready action is wasted and Fred can pop out next unscathed.

That's true since attacking the first enemy to pass a doorway is a typical trigger which means we should never use "first creature" as it can mean your trigger could be an ally of yours too

Using qualifier like "the first" or "the last" also restrict your trigger further. Simply readying to attack when an enemy pass the doorway leave you open to attack any enemies that will do so rather than the first of them for exemple.