Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 6438184" data-attributes="member: 54710">Bganon is correct.  If the PCs want to use ready action to coordinate attacks, the sequence goes:Fighter: Readies action to attacks the orc after the wizard casts.Rogue: Readies action to attacks the orc after the wizard casts.Wizard: Casts hold person. Orc fails its first save and is paralyzed.Fighter: Readied action to attack the orc with advantage for an automatic crit.Rogue: Readied action to attack the orc with advantage for an automatic crit, including double Sneak Attack damage.Orc: Loses its action, makes its second save. Orc is no longer paralyzed.Fighter: [combat continues]Sure - this doesn't produce the exact outcome you would get with a Hold action.  In 5e, the Fighter and Rogue have to expend their Reactions in order to make this sequence work and suffer some consequences if the Orc's allies do something while the PCs are concentrating fire.  But at the same time, the Fighter and Rogue don't move down in the initiative, which doesn't matter if the Orc is the only enemy, but could make a difference if the Orc has allies.But overall, I think it's a fine result: the PCs can effectively reorder their actions if they are fighting a single opponent, but this doesn't force the DM to futz with the initiative order and there may be some consequences if the PCs try to do this in a more complicated fight (or the BBG has a legendary action it can take between when the PC readies an action and when the PC carries it out).  I can see how some groups will houserule a Hold action back into the game, but overall this seems like a good tradeoff.  Simplifying initiative-related actions by by consolidating Hold and Ready, certainly makes combat options easier to explain.-KS</blockquote>

Verification