D&D 5E Legal Ready action triggers and order of resolution

[Maxperson]

Since you are able to ignore a trigger for another trigger that may or may not follow, it's usually easier just to say, "I ready my bow to shoot something coming through that doorway!" Then, every instance of that trigger is open for you to decide if you wish to use your Reaction to shoot. An ally runs in? Wait. A wimpy goblin chasing him? Maybe not. I'll save it in case something scarier comes in. Oh, look, an ogre lumbering in next? Now we're in business, FIRE!

For my games, triggers have to be specific. That's what "particular" means. If you can just use vague triggers, it reduces having a trigger to uselessness. I wouldn't allow the above trigger.

I ready an action to do X if anything happens anywhere!!!! That trigger will happen a lot and allow the PC to just pick and choose to a greater degree than I think ready action was intended for.

 

[Harzel]

As Sorcerers Apprentice said, you don't loose your readied action if you're not taking the reaction when the trigger occurs., you can either take your reaction or ignore the trigger - this every time it happens.

Combined with allowing rather vague/generic triggers, this seems open to allowing extreme leniency or abuse, depending on how you look at it. Would you allow a player to say, "I get ready to attack when there is some movement in the room."? or "I get ready to attack when any other creature I can see takes any action." ? If not, where do you draw the line?

EDIT: Oops. Looks like other have already made this point...

 

[Plaguescarred]

Combined with allowing rather vague/generic triggers, this seems open to allowing extreme leniency or abuse, depending on how you look at it. Would you allow a player to say, "I get ready to attack when there is some movement in the room."? or "I get ready to attack when any other creature I can see takes any action." ? If not, where do you draw the line?

I don't see why these woudn't work, they contain both a perceivable circumstance that will trigger your reaction and an action you will take in response to that trigger. In fact the latter is usually the case when saying "freeze" while holding people at gunpoint ready to shoot if one does anything......

 

[Uchawi]

Unless you introduce the concept of speed of an action, attack, spell, etc. in the game then I do not know how a DM could be fair and consistent. It makes more sense to me that whoever is owner of the action is going to be quicker than someone that is trying to interrupt it. I guess you could make a judgement that the person trying to interrupt is so hyper focused on the interruption that they are at disadvantage the next round whether it succeeds or not.

 

[Corwin]

For my games, triggers have to be specific. That's what "particular" means. If you can just use vague triggers, it reduces having a trigger to uselessness. I wouldn't allow the above trigger.

That's nice? I define "particular" a little differently. That's all. Aiming your bow at a doorway, prepared to shoot a creature moving into the room through it, is specific enough to me.

So, if the archer doesn't know who/what *exactly* lies on the other side of the doorway, that means he cannot ready at all? According to you it would seem that is the case. I find that enough to invalidate your theory.

I ready an action to do X if anything happens anywhere!!!! That trigger will happen a lot and allow the PC to just pick and choose to a greater degree than I think ready action was intended for.

Oh, yay! Hyperbole. A tactic that nearly always results in a strawman. Nice.

 

[Arial Black]

I ready an action to do X if anything happens anywhere!!!!

I realise that this quote was meant as a reductio ad absurdum, but on its face this trigger/act combo is...totally okay!

What's the worst that could happen?

The Ready action already has built-in disadvantages: Extra Attack? Nope. Spell? Makes you lose concentration on any other spell, and you use the slot whether or not you choose to take the readied action.

Can anyone provide an example that shows how Maxperson's quote, if it were the declared trigger/act combo for your Readied action, would break the game?

 

[Corwin]

Especially given, again per the rule, it does not *interrupt* whatever triggering event.

 

[Maxperson]

That's nice? I define "particular" a little differently. That's all. Aiming your bow at a doorway, prepared to shoot a creature moving into the room through it, is specific enough to me.

So, if the archer doesn't know who/what *exactly* lies on the other side of the doorway, that means he cannot ready at all? According to you it would seem that is the case. I find that enough to invalidate your theory.

Oh, yay! Hyperbole. A tactic that nearly always results in a strawman. Nice.

Once again you display complete ignorance about what a strawman is. I was talking about myself and how I do things, giving an extreme example to illustrate why, not attributing it as your argument. Try again.

 

[Maxperson]

I realise that this quote was meant as a reductio ad absurdum, but on its face this trigger/act combo is...totally okay!

Okay in what context? Power? RAW? I view the word particular as being more exacting, since that's what particular means. In my view it wouldn't be okay with RAW, but I totally get that it's very open to interpretation like much of 5e. It may not be broken, but I do think it also violates what is intended by the ready action action.

What's the worst that could happen?

Can anyone provide an example that shows how Maxperson's quote, if it were the declared trigger/act combo for your Readied action, would break the game?

It wouldn't break it, but I don't think it's RAI or RAW.

 

[morikahn]

D&D isn't realistic when it comes to timing. You guys should know that.

Battles aren't literally going back and forth between opponents in a fight; we just describe it like that to make it manageable. Any discussion about what is 'realistic' with timing and reaction speed is a waste of time.

The rules describe reactions as interrupting someone's turn and so they do. There may be some disagreement at where exactly this interruption occurs, but arguments using real world examples or timing is not valid.

Valid arguments are based on RAW, RAI, extracanonical sources such as developer responses, and game balance.