D&D 5E Reactions and Multi Attacks

[Li Shenron]

Really, the entire "Ready" system is a symptom of the greater problem - Initiative or how D&D determines Initiative.

More specifically, the way it punishes characters for rolling better than their opponents.

Regardless of how you determine initiative, either group or "classic" D&D, the end result is oftentimes the same. There are some situations that exist where it is more advantageous to roll worse then their opponents. This was what the "Delay" system was implemented to correct. In 5th we don't have the delay system. Instead we have a tweaked ready system that for the most part does the job but for a few very specific situations. If one is okay with that compromise those situations may not come up at all during a game session.

So an example would be the party setting up an ambush for some Orcs about to enter a room. The Wizard and the Fighter both roll better than the Orcs. The wizard using is action to ready a web spell as soon as he sees the first one enter the room. Perfectly fine. He retains his ability to cast a good spell in a surprise factor. The Fighter readies his action to attack the first one through the threshold. Again, excellent tactics.

This one plays out where the first Orc through the door gets webbed and the fighter gets... 1 attack.

Now compare that to the scenario where the wizard rolls better, the orcs roll next, and the fighter rolls third. Now the wizard gets the web off as the Orcs come in, and the Fighter gets his full attack action of 2 or more attacks. Basically the fighter is punished for a better roll which doesn't really make a lot of tactical sense.

Granted, the wizard has to pay for that advantage cause if a fly lands on him prior to the casting of the spell he'll have to pass a concentration check.... but if the players set the ambush right that should not be a problem. I'm sure someone will bring up "well if the fighter rolled to go after the enemies, he's about to be a piñata for the incoming bad guys. At least under the current system he gets an attack!".

And they'd be right, except the fact the one attack the fighter gets isn't going to drop any of them, and he's still going to be a piñata as its not like the Orcs are moving far into the room....

I agree that 'dems da rulz, but just sayin...

Mah, I am really not convinced by this reasoning...

If you win initiative, you are always getting something more, compared to when you lose initiative.

It's not really about getting 1 attack if you win Init VS getting 2+ attacks if you lose. It's about getting 1 attack more. You still get the "full attacks action" after the orcs, but if you lose Init, you only get that.

 

[PnPgamer]

What about a druid in animal form?

 

[Shadai]

Some of you are bringing in extra rounds, I'm not even considering that. I'm simply saying in that critical first round, the fighter is 1/3 as effective as the wizard is who can cast a full spell. With the same action. The disparity only gets worse as the fighter gains more attacks.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

You can talk all you want about how superior it is to have an attack you don't really control that has a chance of not even going off like its some huge advantage, but most players I know would like to direct the pain themselves rather than leave it to chance. For fire focusing alone, the ability to take a full move, attack, and bonus action (and/or action surge) is hugely critical on that round 1.

Yes you may be going before the orcs in the simplistic example above so you'll get your full attack next round, but that doesn't necessarily mean you'll go before the other enemies in the encounter, or that you'll live, or that the enemy spellcaster doesn't lock you down later in the turn on Initiative 5 before the round resets back up to the top.

I'm not really going to argue the point; as I said, I don't really care either way. Just making an observation.

 

[Jaelommiss]

Some of you are bringing in extra rounds, I'm not even considering that. I'm simply saying in that critical first round, the fighter is 1/3 as effective as the wizard is who can cast a full spell. With the same action. The disparity only gets worse as the fighter gains more attacks.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

You can talk all you want about how superior it is to have an attack you don't really control that has a chance of not even going off like its some huge advantage, but most players I know would like to direct the pain themselves rather than leave it to chance. For fire focusing alone, the ability to take a full move, attack, and bonus action (and/or action surge) is hugely critical on that round 1.

Yes you may be going before the orcs in the simplistic example above so you'll get your full attack next round, but that doesn't necessarily mean you'll go before the other enemies in the encounter, or that you'll live, or that the enemy spellcaster doesn't lock you down later in the turn on Initiative 5 before the round resets back up to the top.

I'm not really going to argue the point; as I said, I don't really care either way. Just making an observation.

I think you are placing too much emphasis on the first round rather than the time period before the orcs' second turns.

Suppose that the orcs will require 7 attacks from the fighter to defeat, and that the wizard does nothing but maintain Web on his turns.

Case 1 - high fighter Initiative

20 Wizard readies web
19 Fighter readies attack
18 Orcs move in, get webbed, get attacked by fighter, attack fighter (1/7 attacks)
20 Wizard maintains web
19 Fighter attacks thrice (4/7 attacks)
18 Orcs attack
20 Wizard maintains web
19 Fighter attacks thrice, ending fight (7/7 attacks)

In this scenario the fight ends after the orcs have two turns.


Case 2 - low fighter Initiative

20 Wizard readies web
18 Orcs move in, get webbed, attack (0/7 attacks)
17 Fighter attacks thrice (3/7 attacks)
20 Wizard maintains web
18 Orcs attack
17 Fighter attacks thrice (6/7 attacks)
20 Wizard maintains web
18 Orcs attack
17 Fighter attacks thrice, ending fight (10/7 attacks)

In this scenario the orcs have three turns to attack before being defeated. At the end of the first round there have been more attacks against the orcs, but by the start of the orcs second turn there have been less. The final result is that the orcs last longer and can harm the fighter more by the end of the fight. The actual situation is more complex, with a decreasing number of orcs over time, however gaining an additional attack before the orcs second turn will ALWAYS increase the likelihood of having defeated an additional foe sooner. Being one attack ahead means that you are always one attack closer to winning than if the readied attack did not occur.

To illustrate the problem with narrowing the scope, I will extend it to the extreme. If we consider the situation after the first turn instead of the first round we will see that the wizard has extended a spell slot with no change anywhere on the battlefield. We could then draw the conclusion that readying spells is worthless because in this situation of narrow scope it had no effect. This is of course laughably false, but helps illustrate why a broader scope is necessary.

 

[SuperZero]

Attacks that happen in the first round after the enemy are not different from attacks that happen in the second round before the enemy.
They happen at the same time. Nothing makes the former more critical because the DM hasn't said "round two" yet.
If you're prevented from taking those attacks, the fighter who got one off first has definitely accomplished more.

 

[Shadai]

Attacks that happen in the first round after the enemy are not different from attacks that happen in the second round before the enemy.
They happen at the same time. Nothing makes the former more critical because the DM hasn't said "round two" yet.
If you're prevented from taking those attacks, the fighter who got one off first has definitely accomplished more.

Incorrect. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, as they say. While you are mostly correct, you can't actually count those attacks until they happen. If a orc priest comes in behind the orcs and casts hold person at the end of round 1, before the fighter gets those attacks at the top of round 2, then the second fighter has advantage. End of round 1, both fighters are held, but the one with lower initiative has definitely scored better. The point is, as I keep telling you, a full round from start to finish has the fighter getting less out of a ready action than his full action.

 

[redrick]

Incorrect. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, as they say. While you are mostly correct, you can't actually count those attacks until they happen. If a orc priest comes in behind the orcs and casts hold person at the end of round 1, before the fighter gets those attacks at the top of round 2, then the second fighter has advantage. End of round 1, both fighters are held, but the one with lower initiative has definitely scored better. The point is, as I keep telling you, a full round from start to finish has the fighter getting less out of a ready action than his full action.

But that's the point! The fighter chose not to act on his own initiative, for tactical reasons. Hopefully that tactical advantage is worth more than being able to charge into the middle of the orcs and use all his extra attacks. At least he got to make that choice.

Sometimes, an advantage is not an advantage that you want, but so it goes. Readied actions are less effective than actions taken on your initiative. You give something up.

Now, the other question you asked is, "is it fair for the fighter to give up his extra attacks when readying an action, while the caster only gives up the risk of a failed concentration check and a lost spell slot?" I think that's a fair question, but I would say yes. In play, I still see melee characters as being the ones who usually ready actions. There are certainly situations where it makes sense for a caster to ready a spell, but it's not usually a damage spell, unless it's the old, "when dude comes through that door, we're gonna hit him with everything we've got." The only class that really dishes in terms of cantrip damage is the Warlock, but, as pointed out above, the Warlock is often concentrating on Hex, so a readied Eldritch Blast has an additional cost associated with it. That 2d10 of fire bolt, vs the fighter rolling 2d6+4 with a greatsword once, instead of twice, comes out in the wash.

 

[SuperZero]

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, as they say.

...the Fighter who won initiative has one attack now. The one who lost has several later.
Yes, that is a relevant idiom.

While you are mostly correct, you can't actually count those attacks until they happen.

...right. Which is why getting one off early is an advantage.

If a orc priest comes in behind the orcs and casts hold person at the end of round 1, before the fighter gets those attacks at the top of round 2, then the second fighter has advantage.

It's true that the specific order of turns complicates tactical issues in a way that's not always realistic. An abstraction to make the game playable; turns are a necessary evil.
In this case, though, Scenario One Fighter's next turn comes up before Scenario Two Fighter's, so he's going to break out of that spell earlier. At that point, you can't just measure which is strictly better any more.
Plus, y'know, the fighter who won initiative had an opportunity to deal with that orc priest that the one who lost never had.

End of round 1, both fighters are held, but the one with lower initiative has definitely scored better.

That's an arbitrary point of measure, though. The only one that really matters is the end of combat. Or a relative point of measure--before the enemy's turn.

The point is, as I keep telling you, a full round from start to finish has the fighter getting less out of a ready action than his full action.

Presumably there was some tactical reason the fighter thought the ready action was better, or he wouldn't have used it. Is the cost fair? I dunno. I'm kinda leaning more towards "Yes," than I was before I read the thread, honestly. It's less demanding than the spellcaster's cost.
But anyway, my point is that initiative is cyclical. Rounds don't really finish. You go from the witch on count 3 to the rogue on count 24 as easily as you go from the fighter on count 19 to the orcs on count 18. There's no difference.

 

[Uchawi]

I find it counter-intuitive that a master of combat class like the fighter is less effective with a reaction versus a class like a wizard that can already be interrupted via concentration.

It is one of those game-isms that place martial classes within strict bounds but give casters a pass.

 

[SuperZero]

The wizard can get an entire spell off versus the fighter only getting part of his attacks, but she can't do it if she's concentrating on a spell without sacrificing that spell and might fail outright if she gets hit before the trigger (and it's probably more likely than it would be if she were concentrating on a spell). I'd say the wizard's cost is greater.

The fighter and wizard should be equally masterful anyway, assuming they're the same level.