Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 1410627" data-attributes="member: 177">Yes. (Do you really wanna argue minutae with the guy who has an evil lawyer as a user icon?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )It seems we must stoop to the dictionary:&nbsp; first adj.1.being before all others in order of time, order, rank, importance, etc.&nbsp; -adv 2. before all others or anything else.&quot;First&quot; is a term denoting relative order.&nbsp; In order for one thing to be &quot;first&quot; there must be others from which it is chosen.&nbsp; If there's a first, there must be at least a potential second.Not making things up at all.&nbsp; Just avoiding paradox.&nbsp; The Delay is unambiguous - you wait to see what happens, and afterwards you take your own action.&nbsp; The order of events is straightforward.A Readied action takes place before the action that triggers it.&nbsp; That means you often cannot allow triggers off of success, because the readied action might remove that success, thus removing the thing that triggered it in one of the oldest temporal paradoxes in the book....PC: &quot;I ready an action - if any of them hits me, I attack him.&quot;DM: &quot;One of them hits!&quot;PC: &quot;Okay, my attack goes off before his - Critical!&nbsp; 432 points of damage!&quot;DM: &quot;Okay, he dies.&nbsp; But he can't hit you if he's dead, so the thing that triggers your readied attack never happened.&nbsp; So, the readied attack never happened, which means he lives, so he can hit you...&quot;This is aside from the cinematic argument - that allowing the player to wait to see if the act succeeds means he's waited too long to undo it.&nbsp; It is easy to think of a character ready and waiting for someone to attempt to strike, and managing to get a shot in first.&nbsp; It is stretching credibility to think they can wait long enough to tell if that strike will succeed and still get their hit in first.It's also aside from the absurd argument.&nbsp; If you're gong to allow the PC to trigger off of a successful to hit roll, why not off of the specifics of a damage roll?&nbsp; There's not particular reason not to, is there?&nbsp; &quot;I ready an action, if I take more than 5 points, I act before he does.&quot;&nbsp; But, that way lies the ability to act from beyond the grave - &quot;I ready an action - if he kills me, I take this action before he does so.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 1410627, member: 177"] Yes. (Do you really wanna argue minutae with the guy who has an evil lawyer as a user icon? :) ) It seems we must stoop to the dictionary: [b]first[/b] [i]adj.[/i]1.being before all others in order of time, order, rank, importance, etc. [i]-adv[/i] 2. before all others or anything else. "First" is a term denoting relative order. In order for one thing to be "first" there must be others from which it is chosen. If there's a first, there must be at least a potential second. Not making things up at all. Just avoiding paradox. The Delay is unambiguous - you wait to see what happens, and afterwards you take your own action. The order of events is straightforward. A Readied action takes place before the action that triggers it. That means you often cannot allow triggers off of success, because the readied action might remove that success, thus removing the thing that triggered it in one of the oldest temporal paradoxes in the book.... PC: "I ready an action - if any of them hits me, I attack him." DM: "One of them hits!" PC: "Okay, my attack goes off before his - Critical! 432 points of damage!" DM: "Okay, he dies. But he can't hit you if he's dead, so the thing that triggers your readied attack never happened. So, the readied attack never happened, which means he lives, so he can hit you..." This is aside from the cinematic argument - that allowing the player to wait to see if the act succeeds means he's waited too long to undo it. It is easy to think of a character ready and waiting for someone to attempt to strike, and managing to get a shot in first. It is stretching credibility to think they can wait long enough to tell if that strike will succeed and still get their hit in first. It's also aside from the absurd argument. If you're gong to allow the PC to trigger off of a successful to hit roll, why not off of the specifics of a damage roll? There's not particular reason not to, is there? "I ready an action, if I take more than 5 points, I act before he does." But, that way lies the ability to act from beyond the grave - "I ready an action - if he kills me, I take this action before he does so." [/QUOTE]

Verification