Defeating my powergamer Glave master

[Goumindong]

I'd like to see those responses. I do not think RAW is clear on this topic, since it does not speak to whether or not the readied action should be considered a turn or not. It merely speaks to when they act, which is not necessarily the same as whether or not it is a turn for the purposes of other effects.

RAW is exceedingly clear here. Design intent was that looping interrupts could not occur. This is explicit in the 4e public design articles. The way they did this was by restricting the number of IIs and IRs and OA's. They liked the idea of multiple OA's and so allowed OA's to be 1/turn while Immediate actions were 1/round.

If interrupt actions occur on their own turn then you RAW would lead right back into that looping OA junk.

So, not only do we know that RAI is this interpretation of RAW, but we can also strictly examine the issue with a nack for the rules.

If the game tells you to do something, do you do anything else but that thing? A: No. The game tells you that immediate actions occur on others turns(PHB 268) and that readied actions are immediate reactions(PHB 291). You do nothing else, you do not invent rules that change or break these precepts.

The game even tells you explicitly how to interrupt enemy actions with reactions. This was an intended game feature, you take a hit in init order and risk losing your action entirely if it does not trigger in the next round.

 

[mkill]

Excuse my scepticism but I haven't seen convincing proof there is a problem with the fighter. A character that does +19 damage on opportunity attacks at Paragon level is good, but it's nothing game breaking or earth shaking. If you're worried he's breaking any rules, post the complete character so we can check it. Remember the character made a build choice: To get reach and high damage, he sacrificed AC (no shield) and hit chance (power attack).

What I'm asking myself is: What are the other players doing? With 6 players I'm sure there is a striker. A paragon rogue, for example, gets +3d6 from sneak attack only. He can easily outdamage that fighter. And that cleric you mentioned: He did notice that in 4th edition, healing the fighter just costs a few minor actions, and he be a very effective combatant in his own right? What other character classes are in the party?

How optimized are the other characters? Many players don't care about effectiveness, they just want a fun character that fits what they want to play. There's nothing wrong with that, but as a GM you need to understand they are happy with their characters and you don't need to nerf other PCs for them.

Let me put it bluntly: The fighter is a solidly built character that's doing his job well. Does a company fire it's best employee for outshining the others? Well, some do, and these don't last long. If other players feel the fighter outshines them, why not help the other to characters shine by themselves? For you, as the DM, this is the better alternative: All players have more fun. Remember that being an effective character is more than dealing raw damage. The wizard who keeps the big bad guy at bay with a firewall so the party can kill his minions first is contributing just as much, or the Warlord that helps the rogue to flank.

Now, let's assume you have helped each character in the party to excel at their job and they truly walk over every encounter with excellent builds, tactics and teamwork. Is that a problem? No. You're the DM. You set the difficulty of each encounter. Send more and tougher monsters. Play smart monsters smart. Use the terrain. You don't need to be unfair and target the fighter with 20 invisible gnoll archers, as someone proposed. In an effective party where every character contributes, they will work together to counter every threat you send. If a module is too easy or too difficult, adjust it to your party.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

And if you were a warden, you could mark everything that survived as a free action.

Don't need to. I'm a Fighter, remember? Anyone I attack with any ability, including Dragon Breath, will make on a hit or miss. So whoever doesn't die is already marked.

 

[Mistwell]

RAW is exceedingly clear here.

It's not. You putting various adjectives in front of your opinion, like exceedingly, or enormously, or whatever, doesn't make it more true. In fact, with time, it just makes it more difficult for me to consider your position, because your positions often seem to be filled with these over the top exaggerations. It's your opinion, and that is all it is. If you simply stated your position without all the accompanying emphasis for effect, it would be more persuasive to me.

Design intent was that looping interrupts could not occur. This is explicit in the 4e public design articles. The way they did this was by restricting the number of IIs and IRs and OA's. They liked the idea of multiple OA's and so allowed OA's to be 1/turn while Immediate actions were 1/round.

Sure, but none of that goes to the question of whether or not the readied action itself should be considered a turn for purposes of other effects.

If interrupt actions occur on their own turn then you RAW would lead right back into that looping OA junk.

How so? All I am asking is if it can be consider a turn for other effects. I do not see how that leads to a loop. It still happens at the time stated in the rule...it's the timing that results in the loop.

So, not only do we know that RAI is this interpretation of RAW, but we can also strictly examine the issue with a nack for the rules.

We do not know what RAI is for this issue. Again, it's not really the kind of issue you can fiat with your opinion.

If the game tells you to do something, do you do anything else but that thing? A: No. The game tells you that immediate actions occur on others turns(PHB 268)

Mind quoting me what you read on that page that says an immediate action occurs on someone else's turn? That's your interpretation, but from what I see it never says that. Quote me where you see it saying that (not your opinion). Happy to be proven wrong on this one.

and that readied actions are immediate reactions(PHB 291). You do nothing else, you do not invent rules that change or break these precepts.

Well of course people do, all the time. It's called a house rule. But, that's not what we are discussing.

The game even tells you explicitly how to interrupt enemy actions with reactions. This was an intended game feature, you take a hit in init order and risk losing your action entirely if it does not trigger in the next round.

Yes, but that does not mean it's not considered a turn for other effects.

 

[Nail]

Controllers were supposed to be quite good with minions; Defenders were supposed to be quite good at tieing up one high value target.

Well, more accurately, Pally's are really good at tying up one high value target. Fighters, due to Combat Superiority, can hold down a larger area.

I'm not sure the word "accurate" is the one you're looking for. "More detailed" perhaps.

 

[Nail]

Mind quoting me what you read on that page that says an immediate action occurs on someone else's turn? That's your interpretation, but from what I see it never says that. Quote me where you see it saying that (not your opinion). Happy to be proven wrong on this one.

I'd be happy to see the rules text on this too. Anyone?

 

[Caliban]

I'd be happy to see the rules text on this too. Anyone?

Oddly enough, it's in the PHB, under immediate actions. You cannot do them on your turn.

I don't have my book with me, or I'd give you the page number.

 

[Mistwell]

Oddly enough, it's in the PHB, under immediate actions. You cannot do them on your turn.

I don't have my book with me, or I'd give you the page number.

Not doing it on "your" turn is not the same as "not considered a turn for purposes of other effects" or "happens along with someone else's turn as part of their turn, and is not considered it's own turn for purposes of other effects". It's just telling you it cannot happen on your initiative count.

 

[Caliban]

Not doing it on "your" turn is not the same as "not considered a turn for purposes of other effects" or "happens along with someone else's turn as part of their turn, and is not considered it's own turn for purposes of other effects". It's just telling you it cannot happen on your initiative count.

Calm down, I'm not the one argueing with you.

Look, Goumindoggie is abrasive and get's on my nerves too. But I happen to agree with him in this instance.

Nowhere does it reference it being "considered it's own turn for the purpose of other effects". I think they would mention something like that if it was intended.

But like I said, I'm not going to argue about it with you. Carry on.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'd like to see those responses. I do not think RAW is clear on this topic, since it does not speak to whether or not the readied action should be considered a turn or not. It merely speaks to when they act, which is not necessarily the same as whether or not it is a turn for the purposes of other effects.



Much like your opinion that 4e has no rounds, I feel this is position is a wild exaggeration. Fighters are not infinitely sticky with this tactic. There are already checks in place for this power. We can debate if it is more or less powerful than it should be, but it's not some UBER power that breaks everything and therefore we need to turn to an obscure interpretation of the readied action rules to deal with it. That might be the case, but it's not necessarily the case.

Well, RAW obviously isn't clear enough for everyone on the subject or there would be no disagreement, but the term TURN is clearly defined in the PHB and an immediate action doesn't meet the definition as I read it.

You are overblowing what you can do with a readied action. Consider the fighter scenario. The only time a fighter can NORMALLY halt a creature's movement is when the creature is already marked. So in fact stickiness is not much effected anyhow. Marks only last a short while to start with. If there are several monsters, then it isn't THAT likely all of them are marked.

There is nothing any more obscure about the way immediate actions work than there is about 100 other aspects of the 4e combat rules. Spend a week on this forum and you'll have a list a mile long. Like it or not 4e's combat system is constructed in a fairly arcane way. It really has to be in order to put order to what is basically free-form action.

I think you might want to go through it a few times on a battlemat and see. There are CHEAP tactics people have come up with, no doubt. Readying an action isn't even in the same league. lol.