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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="two" data-source="post: 1988144" data-attributes="member: 9002">It's so hard to say what one means...First off, in response to those people that think I'm "readying" actions every single round.I'm not, I never claimed to be doing so, and I won't in the future.ON AVERAGE I USE A "READIED" ACTION PERHAPS  ONCE EVERY OTHER BATTLE.I realize this is a lot more than other GM's.  But not something that has the players rolling their eyes ("oh that old thing again").To the GM that has NEVER had an archer, even once in their campaign, "ready" a shot vs. a spellcaster -- that statement pretty much tells me all I need to know.  It's like saying "oh, I've never had a monster take an AOO vs. a PC" or "I've never thrown a spellcaster against a party of PCs".  It seems clear to me that the game is less fun and less interesting if you remove obvious tactical ploys like "readying" a spell interrupt action, which can be very effective.  "can be."  Scare quotes.  Given my situation.There are a number of related issues here.  Those that say casually "oh I never bother having an archer ready a shot; the wizard just will see it and get cover and then cast a spell."  That assumes a bunch of stuff, most importantly:  that it's OBVIOUS when somebody is readying an action.  This is not covered in the rules.  Do you require the archer to be staring directly at the wizard?  What if the archer wants to NOT stare at the wizard but still ready an action?  What if the archer simply has an unknown initiative count (to the wizard); what's the difference between a delaying archer staring at a wizard and an archer with a readied action staring at the wizard?  I can go on but won't.  You assume a lot if you automatelly divulge when enemies are readying and against whom and on what trigger.  How are PC's supposed to figure this out, really?Another rules fuzziness; you CAN explicitely ready a spell interrupt with no ranks of spellcraft and no roll required.  You just know a spell is being cast; it's obvious (or something).  Will a Fighter4 know the difference bewteen a free action cantrip, feather fall, or glitterdust, within the first millisecond of its casting?  IF so, that's one hell of an insightful archer.  That's what a lot of people are suggesting, "just have the readied archers wait out the free action spell and hit 'em on the second one."  I'm all for making a PC's life difficult, but this beggers the imagination.  It's like a Western gunfight, and you are telling one of the gunslingers to "just let him draw and pull the trigger of  his revolver, it's probably empty, but when he whips out that pistol, nail him".  ?  I just can't see a fighter4 20 year old in the middle of combat vs. a wizard of uncertain abilities somehow "waiting out" a free action spell.  It's  spell.  It's what he was waiting for.  He fires.  Am I nuts?If anyone can give me a better justification for waiting it out besides "use archers with a lot of spellcraft" (LOADS of them about, and coming across scads of those won't be repetitive will it?) I'd be grateful.To repeat, I took away the cantrip, and am allowing him to burn Feather Falls when he wants to do this trick.  I'll have to enfore the "target" aspect of FF better; probalby the Wizard will start dropping pebbles as somebody already suggested.I'm not a playa-hata (ha ha, gotta love that stupid phrase).  Player X and I have a good time together; he yanks my chain plenty.  It seems to make the game more fun for him.  But I am going to use methods to get around his "trick" whenever feasible and reasonable in-game.  I'm not going to have animals or undead suddenly "readying" stuff.  That's just retarded.My main point is this:  I think spellcasters have it very easy in d&d.  Lots of ways to get a spell off, even in dangerous circumstances (5' step is just gravy).  I'm irritated that one of the last remaining ways to accomplish this, which is open to a commoner, is now gone (readying an action).  Am I just being a baby?Vote aye, or nay, and I'll be outta here.</blockquote>

Verification