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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rezzin" data-source="post: 4907215" data-attributes="member: 67491">The player is trying to get the best out of his powers and you can't fault a guy for that.  But ya, he is trying to gain benefits from his power by utilizing his ready an action in an odd way.  Example of another scenario:The Paladin PC (played by player in question) wanted to utilizeSo he readied the action to "use Valorous Smite when all enemies move" so that he could gain the "Hit" benefit of above power against every enemy in range, assuming they were going to surround him.  There was no specific enemy or square chosen for the readied action - the player argues that he doesn't need one.  If an enemy (any enemy) happened to end it's move near him than he could use the readied action as an immediate reaction to the movement.  But there is no target to his trigger, its just an ambiguous enemy.  All he needs to do is pick an enemy and he's good, but he doesn't want to in case that enemy doesn't move next to him.  I mean why doesn't he just move into a position, instead of readying an action and just use his power?  Or just pick an enemy instead of a trigger with no target?  What if another enemy, other than the group of enemies he was talking about moved near him?  By his logic he should be able to attack any enemy as long as they move near him - which seems fine but does not seem to jive with the ready an action rules that discuss having a target.  Unless he targets a square in front of him, which I suggested...."if any enemy enters this square I attack them" seems to be alright with me.  Now I could be totally not following the ready an action rules but I have read them and done a little research and I think you have to have a target...then again I could be wrong, not the first time - definitely not the last. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  It is very, very trivial - just like the "effect" scenario we first discussed.  Are the ramifications of this detrimental to the game?  No, could they be in the future and at higher levels...maybe, maybe not.  But later in the game, when powers that have awesome effects come into play, we can't have the player just saying they happen without a roll, nor can he ready an action without a target. (from what I understand).  All these issues are minor but when you give the guy an inch...he takes a mile.  Back to basics though and the topic at hand.  No the DM is not always right (bad thread title, very bad) but should be the authority during the game - regardless if rules lawyer PC complains about having to abide by the DM's call.  Sort it out later.  We played this past week again and everything was good at the table, but we again argued when the game was done this time about the same stuff.  Ready an action he is still upset with regarding the "target" variable but he has reluctantly agreed to abide by the sequence of following a power.</blockquote>

Verification