Do you get two attacks if you ready against a spellcaster?

[Skoal]

You get both.

Perhaps you are reading the FAQ differently from me? This is discussing the situation of trying to prevent the spellcaster or archer stepping back 5' to avoid an AoO from you.

I think I'm just reading a different page. Let's see. The text you quoted is on page 32. The reference I'm referring to is on page 33.

Q. Is it possible to ready an action as follows: If the wizard
casts a spell, I attack him; if he leaves, I follow. Or is that
condition not specific enough?

A. It's actually over specific, because you're really specifying
two different conditions and two different actions here. The
ready action allows you to specify one partial action and the
condition under which you will perform the action. You could
simply ready an attack on the wizard whenever he casts a spell,
and this would allow you to do any number of things, including
attack, take a 5-foot step and attack, or even make a partial
charge and attack. In such a case, you would not get an attack
of opportunity on the wizard when he cast the spell, but you
would force a Concentration check if you damage the wizard.

Hmmm, now why would you get an AoO against an archer but not a spellcaster. I knew those finger wragglers were sneaky bastards.

Do they do errata on FAQ's?

 

[Artoomis]

I think I'm just reading a different page. Let's see. The text you quoted is on page 32. The reference I'm referring to is on page 33.


Hmmm, now why would you get an AoO against an archer but not a spellcaster. I knew those finger wragglers were sneaky bastards.

Do they do errata on FAQ's?

Fascinating.

It seems pretty claer that your quote is in error.

By the way, the page nubers are now page 33 for mine, 34 for yours in the 7/12 version.

 

[peteyfrogboy]

In the situation from the FAQ, the condition that triggers the readied attack is the wizard casting a spell. You can't also get the AoO, because it would be triggered by the same event. The wizard only casts the spell once, so it can only trigger one action.

 

[KarinsDad]

For once, I agree with the Sage's ruling (please, do not be too shocked).

The intent of AoO is to balance the game with regard to movement, spell casting, and missile firing. If you do these things in a threatened area, you drop your guard.

But, if you are using a ready action to take advantage of an opening that an opponent makes, it really does not make sense that you are watching for that opening and can take yet another advantage of the same opening with the AoO.

This would be similar to allowing Combat Reflexes to be used to attack multiple times as someone runs past you.

 

[Christian]

This would be similar to allowing Combat Reflexes to be used to attack multiple times as someone runs past you.

And suddenly the right answer seems obvious. Thanks, KD-I'd been waffling on this one, but clearly the Sage made a good ruling here.

 

[Artoomis]

For once, I agree with the Sage's ruling (please, do not be too shocked).

The intent of AoO is to balance the game with regard to movement, spell casting, and missile firing. If you do these things in a threatened area, you drop your guard.

But, if you are using a ready action to take advantage of an opening that an opponent makes, it really does not make sense that you are watching for that opening and can take yet another advantage of the same opening with the AoO.

This would be similar to allowing Combat Reflexes to be used to attack multiple times as someone runs past you.

I disagree (not a shocker). Think of it this way:

You Ready your action to attack the spell caster to disrupt his spell.

He begins to cast.

You get your readied action - and let;s say he makes his concentration check.

He continues to cast.

You get your AoO.

Works for me, and follows Sage Advice as well (Sage Advice, is this case, contradicts itself in the FAQ).

 

[Mr.Binx]

This would be similar to allowing Combat Reflexes to be used to attack multiple times as someone runs past you.

So if you ready an attack against someone who is running past you then you make the readied attack but are not then able to make an AoO as the individual runs through your remaining threatened areas? I'm sorry, but with my group I would not be able to let this logic slide. I play with some pretty tactically sound rule-lawyers who would have a field day and eat me alive if we started opening up gaps in the printed rules like this. I can already think of about three different instances where this would just turn nasty at our table. I'd have to stick with allowing both attacks in our group from a tactical and safety-of-the-group-morale standpoint even if it does go against real-life temporal logic.

 

[KarinsDad]

Works for me, and follows Sage Advice as well (Sage Advice, is this case, contradicts itself in the FAQ).

Although this interpretation could make sense in a game mechanic type of perspective, I do not think it makes sense in a game balance perspective.

To me, it is like Combat Reflexes. "Well, he moved through threatened space one and threatened space two during his single move action, so I attacked him twice." That should not be allowed since the character is only lowering his guard once with respect to the other character since it is only one move action.

AoOs really are not real world events. Rather, they are game balance events in order to attempt to balance out certain powerful actions (such as moving through an entire field of threatening guards and attacking the king unmolested) in a turn based game system. The only reason they are there at all is because the game is turned based.

Allowing both the Readied Attack and the AoO on the same trigger is not balanced. It's like getting a full round attack for free within a partial action.

I think the same should apply for movement AoOs and movement Readied Actions. "I attack him if he moves.", he moves back 30 feet and casts a spell. Well, you already attacked him for moving, you should not get to double dip a movement AoO for him moving away and casting as well.

The advantage of Readying is that you get to prevent things like him doing a Concentration check and negating the AoO completely or moving 5' away and casting. It should not get another advantage of an extra attack.

I can understand your rationale, "I can AoO whenever someone casts in a threatened area", but I do not agree with it in this case. Nothing new for us Artoomis.

Btw, with a literal interpretation of the current rules, I think your interpretation is correct since there is nothing to prevent the AoO. Doesn't mean I do not think the literal rules are broken here.

 

[KarinsDad]

So if you ready an attack against someone who is running past you then you make the readied attack but are not then able to make an AoO as the individual runs through your remaining threatened areas?

That's a good point. I may have to reconsider.

 

[Mr.Binx]

Yeah, the reason I would keep it this way is because my players enjoying messing up a storyline and causing the DM much lament by trying to impress each other with their tactical prowess. I wouldn't have an NPC exploit such a rule so I would be giving the power-gamer players an advantage over the RP'ed NPCs. For instance we had a wizard who would summon a large creatures and work it out so that he was prone in the middle of the creature's square so he could cast spells since the rules do not prohibit you from casting spells while prone and nothing says you have to move out of another persons square once you have ended up prone in it. It just states that you cannot end your movement in one. As long as he didn't start his movement then he didn't have to worry about ending it. This would allow the player to have the monster as a meat-shield with reach. There was no role playing reason for having a summoned Xorn bull-rush himself into another summoned Xorn. So I basically had to say no and come up with a house-ruling. This is just tactical power-gaming. Sometimes you have to make compromises to balance things. With most any other gaming group I probably wouldn't have to worry about crazy stuff like this and could be alot more lenient.