Yes and no. It's perfectly feasible to want to crawl away from that spot as I showed with the short wall and goblins. Am I trying to get away as fast as I can? No. I don't know where the wizard is coming out. He might be 5 feet away from where he was or 200 feet in front of me.
Again dithering and not providing a clear answer. Since you prepared an action from when the caster disappeared, you had something in mind, otherwise, once more, it would have been a very silly action to.
But no matter, by refusing to answer once more, you are just proving that you are only trying to dick with the rules here, it's not a case that has any relevance to actual play.
The point is that it doesn't matter. Once my readied action goes off, his action is interrupted completely until after mine is completed, so I would still be out of range of the thunder and safe, despite crawling away and a typical crawl speed.
The thing is that there is nothing that represents a "typical crawling speed". Have you not understood yet that, as a player, you have absolutely zero control about the actual velocity of your move ? You only know HOW FAR you are allowed to move with the action allocated to you. But the time that you will take is not yours to decide, it's entirely up to the DM.
No, I'm using RAW and none of the rest of that even applies here as I'm using YOUR interpretation of RAW here, allowing me to interrupt the instant spell in the middle. It's YOUR interpretation that allows the PC to crawl away at normal speed and be safe, not mine.
The problem is that, while I have given you many times the rules that support my view, you still have not provided a single shred of evidence that support you. The only thing that you have are convictions about the simultaneity of things or about the unicity of actions that is not supported by anything.
No, it's perceivable. No, it happens after. And correct, it interrupts the turn.
At last, we are progressing. Why did it take 16 pages for you to acknowledge these simple truths ?
What is not plainly written, is whether the trigger is just what you perceive or if the trigger INCLUDES any instant effects tied to it like the attack Sage Advice indicates. You assume no. I assume yes. RAW doesn't say.
Once more, you are inventing things. An attack or a damage rolls are not effects. Are they effects for you ? Are you going to cling to this new absurdity ?
So no, the Sage Advice on Sentinel gives you zero support, you are once again relying on inventing rules and denominations that appear nowhere in the rules.
This is where you are going astral. It says that the round represents around 6 second and that during that round you get a turn where you take your actions, etc. Nowhere does it say that you only get 2 seconds or 1 second for your turn.
But more importantly, nowhere does it say that your turn is any specified amount of time, and in particular that it's equal to the duration of the round. If you thing it is, PROVE IT.
Because my perspective is that the game is not as prescriptive as what you think and that you are, once more, inventing rules.
You're inventing that shortening. If you want the turn to be less than the round time, you need to show something written to support you.
I don't need any support. I'm just claiming that nowhere does the game specify the length of a turn, because it would lead to inconsistencies. YOU are the one claiming that a turn is 6 seconds long, so YOU have to prove it.
Unfortunately, I have proven to you with a very simple example, that it cannot be the case, so I'm very curious how you're going to prove that.
Again, my point is that a turn does not have a fixed length of time and that no one is allowed to specify it, especially precisely.
Combat is funky, because it has to be turn based to run. You can try to imagine it as simultaneous, but it will be just as funky if you do that as if you don't, because simultaneous is not how things play out in turn based combat.
And the problem, once more, is that you want things to be absolute. They are not. Indeed, it would be silly if all combat was simultaneous, as I 've shown in the example, but it would be equally silly if things were completely in sequence. It's a mix of both, players declare the intents of their characters in terms of actions and the DM describes what happens, trying his best to have thing happen that make sense, and that's all there is to it.
Stop trying to constrain the game the way you would like, it does not work that way, you are the one hitting walls on your own with the constraints that you want to impose.
The reality is that everyone has consecutive turns that all last 6 seconds
PROVE IT. It's nowhere in the game. Again, prove the length of a turn.
yet the round is not longer than 6 seconds and is not simultaneous. It's an unrealistic system that is a must in order to have combats take less than 10 hours to complete.
It has nothing to do with that. It's unrealistic because D&D is unrealistic anyway, starting with HP and AC and spells, but its NARRATIVE and it works for that.
It depends on what you do. If you only move 30 feet and that's it, that's what you spent your 6 seconds on.
And as shown in my example, it does not work, because if someone else plays after your turn and before the round is complete, he will not have any time to do it. Hence you are simply, irrevocably wrong.
If you move and dash, then you moved 60 feet in 6 seconds. If you move 30 and attack, then you spent 6 seconds doing that.
And again, it's not possible, since you are not leaving time for other participants to act after your turn, as specified by the rules. So it's wrong. Simply.
There is NOTHING to support your assertion that turns are less than 6 seconds when the rules say during the round you get a turn and can do X, which directly translates to, "During the 6 seconds you can do X."
And once more, you have totally failed to prove that a turn lasts 6 seconds. It simply does not. Not only do the rules NOT say it, but on top of that it's patently absurd even on very simple examples. You will have to do way better than this.
You haven't. You only made a declaration that goes against what is written.
OK, since you insist, in my very simple example (remember, you do your complete turn, moving 30 feet, then it's someone else's turn, he drops you and moves 30 feet), what did I say that goes again what is written ? I'm sorry, I will not drop this because it's obvious, from this very simple example, that your conception of a turn is utterly wrong. So what do I say, in this example, that goes against what is written ?
The only thing that I'm contradicting is your belief that a turn lasts 6 seconds, but since it's written NOWHERE in any of the rules for any edition of the game, I'm not too worried...
And the trigger is the attack, not a hit and not damage, all three of which are perceivable.
No, it's not a hit and a damage, it's an attack ROLL and a damage ROLL. Are these perceivable by a character ? The only thing that is perceivable is an attack, and whether it hits or misses.
So if the trigger is the attack, that trigger is complete before the attack roll or damage roll...............................by your reading of the rules anyway.
Only, once more, you are not reading the rules, I have given you enough pointers by now on that section which is all three paragraphs long. But you insist on calling a roll "an effect", and at that stage, I'm afraid there is nothing more that can be done.
Specific timing there, so it doesn't apply. Ready has no such specific timing as per the DMG.
And therefore, the global rule applies, it's right after the trigger finishes. But what's the point, you have already acknowledged that I'm right about this when you said: "No, it's perceivable. No, it happens after. And correct, it interrupts the turn." What more needs to be said ?
