Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8584011" data-attributes="member: 7032025">We've actually had that case, but first, the important point is that it does not interfere with sentinel because the wording on the feat is specific, it's &quot;makes an attack&quot;, not &quot;threatens to make an attack&quot;.Now, why we had that case was because it's probably the only house rule that we have, but we allow ready actions before combat has started (whereas, RAW, these are combat actions only), and they take effect during the first round of combat if the trigger happens.So when we have tense negotiations that might degenerate, we have people watching for signs of attack like this and we allow them, but of course with the caveat that it still needs to actually be perceivable. For example, the strike might not be from a raised weapon, or might be a feint, or a way to force the other side to act and break negotiation first, and that keeps people on their toes about this kind of declaration.The other part which we find helpful is the fact that if you ready a spell, you actually have to cast it and leave it hanging, which has multiple consequences, including but not limited to the fact that you have spent the slot even if the trigger does not happen, that it takes your concentration to do it and that you therefore cannot have many of the current buffs running, and the fact that the casting in itself is very noticeable (barring specialised feats and powers), so it's rarely appropriate for negotiations.Finally, note that if someone raises a sword to attack and this causes the trigger of a ready action, nothing says anywhere that there might actually be an attack, so there is no commitment there.So all in all, it works well, including with the type of trigger that you suggest.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lyxen, post: 8584011, member: 7032025"] We've actually had that case, but first, the important point is that it does not interfere with sentinel because the wording on the feat is specific, it's "makes an attack", not "threatens to make an attack". Now, why we had that case was because it's probably the only house rule that we have, but we allow ready actions before combat has started (whereas, RAW, these are combat actions only), and they take effect during the first round of combat if the trigger happens. So when we have tense negotiations that might degenerate, we have people watching for signs of attack like this and we allow them, but of course with the caveat that it still needs to actually be perceivable. For example, the strike might not be from a raised weapon, or might be a feint, or a way to force the other side to act and break negotiation first, and that keeps people on their toes about this kind of declaration. The other part which we find helpful is the fact that if you ready a spell, you actually have to cast it and leave it hanging, which has multiple consequences, including but not limited to the fact that you have spent the slot even if the trigger does not happen, that it takes your concentration to do it and that you therefore cannot have many of the current buffs running, and the fact that the casting in itself is very noticeable (barring specialised feats and powers), so it's rarely appropriate for negotiations. Finally, note that if someone raises a sword to attack and this causes the trigger of a ready action, nothing says anywhere that there might actually be an attack, so there is no commitment there. So all in all, it works well, including with the type of trigger that you suggest. [/QUOTE]

Verification