[DM Issue] - How would you have handled this?

[Majere]

Readied actions are both powerful and limited. The power comes from them always going off first, the weakness is you have to be exact in your wording.
The last session I played we worked out that the enemy were set up behind a door waiting for us, and that they had a spell caster. I summoned a bear and told it to attack the nearest unarmed opponent (hoping that the spell caster would be not wielding a spell caster (We knew it was a very high int caster). The bear walked in, and proceeded to rend to pieces the nearest prisoner chained to the wall.
I didnt complain, I gave the bear instructions and it followed them, It was just unfortunate there were prisoners in the room we didnt know about.

This situation is exactly similar, the guy misworded his ready, he loses his action. Next time he will word it properly. The DM made the right call, and while it seems harsh It works both ways, If you suspect that NPC's are waiting for you, then they probably have readied actions like "attack the first thing that comes through the door", at this point you can break up their readied actions farily easily with summon monsters and the such.

Just my 2c
And it seems like the player accepted this, which is even better

Majere

 

[Chroma]

Readied actions are both powerful and limited. The power comes from them always going off first, the weakness is you have to be exact in your wording.

Have readied actions become the "wish" of 3rd+ Edition? Is there any place that gives examples of common readied action triggers? How specific do DMs require their players to be when they ready an action?

The group I'm in tends to play pretty fast and loose with it and give anyone the benefit of the doubt with poorly declared triggers.

As well, as a DM, how strict are you on yourself when having NPCs ready actions? Do you write down the trigger/action to make sure you don't screw it up or anything?

 

[Czhorat]

I'd have been pretty annoyed if you did this to me. I think it's reasonably clear that he meant "if attacked" rather than "if hit" - especially if he went for his dice before you resolved the enemies' attacks. Your being too literal can make your game seem like one of those old all-text computer adventure games where your character can't do something unless you can figure out *exactly* the same words that the game designer thought you should use.

Majere, your example is not really a good one. Your character was giving instructions to a summoned creature with a very low intelligence. In that case a certain literal-mindedness and inability to make good decisions on the fly can be expected. Reveal's player, on the other hand, was deciding what to do himself. In this case I think it's reasonable that his action follow the intention so long as the intent is clear.

 

[Silveras]

I'd have been pretty annoyed if you did this to me. I think it's reasonably clear that he meant "if attacked" rather than "if hit" - especially if he went for his dice before you resolved the enemies' attacks. Your being too literal can make your game seem like one of those old all-text computer adventure games where your character can't do something unless you can figure out *exactly* the same words that the game designer thought you should use.

Majere, your example is not really a good one. Your character was giving instructions to a summoned creature with a very low intelligence. In that case a certain literal-mindedness and inability to make good decisions on the fly can be expected. Reveal's player, on the other hand, was deciding what to do himself. In this case I think it's reasonable that his action follow the intention so long as the intent is clear.

Much depends on the style of talk around the table. In my group, "hit" means specifically "successful attack", not just "attempt to attack".

Also, while Reiella is incorrect about the sequence of events. Readied actions can be triggered in the middle of another creature's action -- the specific example given is a creature moving into view for someone with a readied range weapon to attack. That happens in the middle of the creature's action, not before it.

I can also envision a circumstance where the player may have been afraid of a follow-up attack of some type. Some feats allow you to make a Trip or other special attack type after a successful melee hit. Declaring a ready action to strike someone who succeeded in hitting you is not unreasonable in that event.

It has been suggested that the DM needs to clarify the meaning in such cases. What cases ? At my table, the stated action would be a valid response to a rare case. I would not clarify what seemed pretty clear to me at the time, unless the player was a new one and I had reason to suspect s/he might not be familiar with the table usage. However, if the player was one of my regulars, the declaration would seem a little odd but would be valid, and I would have run it just as Reveal did.

 

[Darkness]

Readying an action to attack first if I'm hit is evidently contradictory

See, that's why I edited out my post.

I initially read it exactly like you , and posted something to that effect.

On a second reading, though, it became clear that there is a very obvious non-contradictory interpretation: When someone hits him, he will attack them before attacking the other possible targets.

 

[Umbran]

SOn a second reading, though, it became clear that there is a very obvious non-contradictory interpretation: When someone hits him, he will attack them before attacking the other possible targets.

Except that reveal stipulated that the player was setting up a readied action. What you're describing isn't a readied action - it is a delayed full attack action with multiple possible targets.

 

[Darkness]

Except that reveal stipulated that the player was setting up a readied action. What you're describing isn't a readied action - it is a delayed full attack action with multiple possible targets.

Actually, no.

I wasn't talking about a multiple attack action; I was talking about attacking the guy who hit him in preference to other targets.

 

[BSF]

If I was in your game, I would have packed up my books and never would play with you again. People play games to have fun, not to have someone judge us harshly for verbal mistakes. You should have enough sense to know that the player simply made a mistake in his word choice, and you decided to simply be a mean DM.

What? It is quite possible that a player would mean "hit" instead of attack. The player might have been operating under the premise that the first attacker to actually connect _might_ have thee best attack score. In DnD it is easier to figure out that the Ogre is likely to be more dangerous than the Orc next to him than it is is in D20 Modern where you might be facing several humans, but only one of them is well-trained.

I'm not saying that this would be the best way to determine such a thing, but in the absence of any other method, it is likely that one or more of my players would use such a method to guess who poses the most danger. Does that make me a "mean DM" for interpreting their readied actions precisely? Being a mean DM would be forcing the PC to attack when a fellow PC accidentally hit him with a fumble or something.

Reveal - Before your next session starts, go over readied actions with your players so all of you are on the same page next time regarding the precision of wording.

 

[Terwox]

Go with what he meant, not what he said, and try to get him to say what he means next time.

That's how I'd of handled it.

The main point is that you and the player both went home happy, and also resolved the point quickly, so who gives a crap? Certain players would be annoyed that you stopped him, certain players would be annoyed if you didn't stop him, some people require more specific speech than others -- it's rather situational, and individual.

 

[Umbran]

I wasn't talking about a multiple attack action; I was talking about attacking the guy who hit him in preference to other targets.

To say you'd hit one of them first in this round implies that there's the possibility of subsequent hits in this round. Multiple attacks in the round implies the Full Attack.

Even if you say the player is thinking of single attacks over multiple rounds, the first of which will be against the guy who hit him, waiting to see which one actually succeeds in hitting implies the Delay, rather than a Ready. Since we know it is not a Delay, your interpretation doesn't fit the situation.

This is what I meant when I said that holding people to the letter of their words in combat creates rules-lawyering. You really don't want to have discussions like this at the gaming table. They slow down combat. Rather than trying to fit the exact words, you should be trying to fit the player's intent. If there are multiple possible intents, you should be asking, rather than using a shoehorn