Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 136101" data-attributes="member: 2013">Bad rule...VERY bad house rule.&nbsp; The problem is that you punish Bob for using the &quot;ready action&quot; by denying him an attack.&nbsp; This seems to imply that a ready action should be handled like an AoO (where the order of actions is important - e.g., it matters when you're in melee whether you take a 5' step back then shoot your crossbow - no AoO - or shoot your crossbow then take a 5' step - which draws an AoO).&nbsp; In the case of readied actions, the order of actions a character takes shouldn't be important because of the way D&amp;D models combat.&nbsp; Not to mention that he's already gone out on a limb when declaring the action he's going to react to... if Sheila doesn't move, for example, he loses the attack entirely.&nbsp; Readied actions are a risky enough proposition as it is (you have to guess right on your opponent's action to get an attack).&nbsp; Putting in this house rule basically means that using the readied action is the same as forfeiting an attack, because the opponent can always choose to take the action that triggers your attack last, and thus essentially get two shots in on you before you can act (see below).Bob's first action should have taken place before Sheila (whether it was on a low init in the previous round or a high init in the same round is irrelevant).&nbsp; He chooses to hold it until Sheila &quot;sets it off.&quot;&nbsp; Sheila makes her move and &quot;sets Bob off&quot; (i.e., Bob attacks first, as is proper since his action came before hers) then Sheila makes her move (as is proper since her action came after).If I use your house rule, however, the next round, Sheila gets to go first.&nbsp; That essentially gives Sheila two actions to mess with Bob before he can respond at that's no good (to use your wording).Keep in mind that D&amp;D is somewhat abstracted and movement and attacks take place (in theory) simultaneously.&nbsp; Otherwise you would have a &quot;movement&quot; phase for all characters followed by an &quot;attack&quot; phase.&nbsp; Instead, the model is &quot;move and attack&quot; or &quot;attack and move&quot; as you choose.&nbsp; IOW, &quot;movement&quot; and &quot;attack&quot; are NOT two separate initiative counts... they don't occur at 22.2 and 22.1, they both literally occur simultaneously as far as initiative is concerned.While it may seem intuitive to say &quot;she attacked, then moved&quot; and &quot;the movement incurred the readied action so her next attack should come before his next attack&quot; it doesn't really work that way.&nbsp; The combat round is not broken into &quot;movement&quot; and &quot;attack&quot; phases.&nbsp; If any portion of your actions during your initiative count triggers my readied action, I get to hop into the initiative order &quot;ahead&quot; of you in future rounds (by virtue of the tie-breaker).You never want to punish a character for using good tactics.&nbsp; And it's a bit different when you are anticipating something versus trying to react on the fly with no anticipation.&nbsp; Think of it this way... Bob was ready for (was anticpating) Sheila's move, and as soon as she STARTS to make that step, he fires.&nbsp; Sheila then finishes her move.&nbsp; Bob then should act ahead of her the next round.My 2 cents, and hope it made sense.--The Sigil</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 136101, member: 2013"] [b]Bad rule...[/b] VERY bad house rule. The problem is that you punish Bob for using the "ready action" by denying him an attack. This seems to imply that a ready action should be handled like an AoO (where the order of actions is important - e.g., it matters when you're in melee whether you take a 5' step back then shoot your crossbow - no AoO - or shoot your crossbow then take a 5' step - which draws an AoO). In the case of readied actions, the order of actions a character takes shouldn't be important because of the way D&D models combat. Not to mention that he's already gone out on a limb when declaring the action he's going to react to... if Sheila doesn't move, for example, he loses the attack entirely. Readied actions are a risky enough proposition as it is (you have to guess right on your opponent's action to get an attack). Putting in this house rule basically means that using the readied action is the same as forfeiting an attack, because the opponent can always choose to take the action that triggers your attack last, and thus essentially get two shots in on you before you can act (see below). Bob's first action should have taken place before Sheila (whether it was on a low init in the previous round or a high init in the same round is irrelevant). He chooses to hold it until Sheila "sets it off." Sheila makes her move and "sets Bob off" (i.e., Bob attacks first, as is proper since his action came before hers) then Sheila makes her move (as is proper since her action came after). If I use your house rule, however, the next round, Sheila gets to go first. That essentially gives Sheila two actions to mess with Bob before he can respond at that's no good (to use your wording). Keep in mind that D&D is somewhat abstracted and movement and attacks take place (in theory) simultaneously. Otherwise you would have a "movement" phase for all characters followed by an "attack" phase. Instead, the model is "move and attack" or "attack and move" as you choose. IOW, "movement" and "attack" are NOT two separate initiative counts... they don't occur at 22.2 and 22.1, they both literally occur simultaneously as far as initiative is concerned. While it may seem intuitive to say "she attacked, then moved" and "the movement incurred the readied action so her next attack should come before his next attack" it doesn't really work that way. The combat round is not broken into "movement" and "attack" phases. If any portion of your actions during your initiative count triggers my readied action, I get to hop into the initiative order "ahead" of you in future rounds (by virtue of the tie-breaker). You never want to punish a character for using good tactics. And it's a bit different when you are anticipating something versus trying to react on the fly with no anticipation. Think of it this way... Bob was ready for (was anticpating) Sheila's move, and as soon as she STARTS to make that step, he fires. Sheila then finishes her move. Bob then should act ahead of her the next round. My 2 cents, and hope it made sense. --The Sigil [/QUOTE]

Verification