Readied actions triggering off of things that happen in the middle of an action

[Nichwee]

By RAW the timing for a Readied Action is pretty straightforward.

Immediate Reaction: A readied action is an immediate reaction. It takes place after your enemy completes the action that triggers it.

So by RAW you come directly after any trigger you use. So if you trigger on an Immediate Interrupt you act before completing whatever triggered the II (as you act as soon as the II completes). However, by RAW, you only trigger off of enemy actions.

AS such if you want to be able to trigger on your allies' actions you should be ready for houserules. The most simple being "no jumping into the middle of II battles".

Tbh, I would just say "No triggering off Immediate actions" but allow triggering off what triggers an IA. e.g. "My trigger is the first attack that causes the Wizard to use his Shield utility, and I plan to charge the guy who triggers it". This way the Readied Action is set off by the same basic effect (Wizard uses Shield) but is responding to the attack triggering Shield, not Shield itself. Thus the Redied Action comes after the monster's attack every time. You always trigger off a non-Immediate action, just which one may have been determined by the use of an Immediate action.

 

[Hypersmurf]

According to literal RAW, the resolution of the ready action can only occur after the enemy who triggered it has completed its action.

Remember, though, that in terms of immediate reactions, "the triggering action" doesn't necessarily refer to a free/move/standard/whatever action. It's a more generic use of 'action' which can refer to a component of a [technical] action.

"An immediate reaction might interrupt other actions a combatant takes after its triggering action. For example, if a power lets you attack as an immediate reaction when an attack hits you, your action happens before the monster that hit you can take any other action. If a monster has a power that lets it make two attack rolls against you as a standard action, and the first one hits, you can use an immediate reaction before the next attack roll."

In this case, the triggering 'action' is not the standard action the monster is taking; it is one of the attacks that occurs as a component of the action. Similarly, each square of movement that occurs as a component of a [technical] action can be 'the triggering action'.

This is still true in the case of Ready, since the Ready text makes the point that if a single power allows an enemy to move and then attack, the Ready action can trigger from the movement, and will occur after 'the triggering action', not after the completion of the entire [technical] action that comprises the use of the power.

'The triggering action', really, is a shorthand for 'the triggering action, event, or condition' - the things that can act as a trigger for an immediate action.

In our scenario, the enemy takes a standard action to attack, and is interrupted by the wizard's Shield power. The use of Shield is the triggering action, event, or condition, and we've already seen that if the use of a power can be broken into multiple components, an Immediate Reaction can react to an earlier component before a later component occurs, even as part of the same [technical] action. "After the enemy has completed his action" doesn't necessarily impose a requirement of the readied action triggering after the entire attack is resolved, because when it comes to reactions, 'action' doesn't always mean 'action'.

-Hyp.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

Consider the following three situations:

1. A fighter readies an action to attack anything that enters a square adjacent to him. A wizard thunderwaves an enemy through a square adjacent to him, but the enemy ends up past him. Does the fighter's readied action go off as the monster is on its way past him?
.

The answers in this thread seem to indicate this is okay, but I didn't think this was possible. I thought, according to the PH1/2 that any move that was forced didn't provoke an attack. That's the way we've been playing it in our campaign too.

Can someone please clarify this? Thanks!

 

[KarinsDad]

The answers in this thread seem to indicate this is okay, but I didn't think this was possible. I thought, according to the PH1/2 that any move that was forced didn't provoke an attack. That's the way we've been playing it in our campaign too.

Can someone please clarify this? Thanks!

Forced movement does not provoke an opportunity action or an opportunity attack.

The Ready action occurs on the trigger of the creature moving by, not on an opportunity action. It's a different game mechanic.

So, it would not provoke an OA (as per how you were playing it), it will trigger a Readied action.

 

[DarkLord Of DForce]

Okay, I thought it might still apply, not because it was an OA, but that the creatures movement by the person with the readied action was forced, not voluntary.

Otherwise, with my Avenger, I'd be tempted to push, pull, and slide targets by my teammates all day long.

Thanks!

 

[lukelightning]

I loathe readied actions. They should have died a quiet death in the transition to 4e. You don't want to do anything now? Fine, delay your action.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I loathe readied actions. They should have died a quiet death in the transition to 4e. You don't want to do anything now? Fine, delay your action.

I tend to agree. However, I wouldn't have gone so far as to disallow them entirely, but change the wording so it's clear, and restrict it for a basic attack, or a minor action or free action. No other types of actions. Allow it to interrupt movement (even if part of a power or charge) and that's it, otherwise it's a reaction to the full [action] (e.g. standard action). Things to think about on this: move actions (but not moves)? Initiative is AFTER the creature you interrupt (reaction after all)?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The problem is that we have multiple RAW sentences that conflict based on interpretation and scenario (as I illustrated, the one RAW interpretation that you were using can be opposed by other RAW interpretations which you CHOOSE to consider less RAW than the RAW you were quoting).

Hence, one has to use RAI to interpret since RAW conflicts.

In the case of #3, the general "one cannot interrupt actions other than movement" is RAI (and RAW). Hence, interrupting the attacking enemy's action by basing the trigger off of casting of Shield is trumped by the rule that one cannot interrupt an action.

Well, at worst its one opinion against another. As I pointed out in my earlier post though the interpretation you're following does lead to some rather odd results and significantly degrades the utility of Ready An Action in ways that do not appear to be intended by any reasonable reading of the rules.

As for the specific on not being able to interrupt other actions this has been addressed already. The readied action is not interrupting another action, its following the use of shield. Again as already demonstrated by others the word "action" as it is used in regards to triggers in the Ready An Action text and other rules relating to Immediate Reactions (or IA's in general) is informal and cannot be interpreted as the formal term "Action". It is unfortunate that the rules authors were so lax in their definition and use of terminology but so it is.

Its not so much that I can't possibly see your position as at all defensible as it is that it simply isn't more defensible than others and it doesn't seem to solve any problems. Rather it creates other problems or at least "oddities".

 

[Doctor Proctor]

As for the specific on not being able to interrupt other actions this has been addressed already. The readied action is not interrupting another action, its following the use of shield. Again as already demonstrated by others the word "action" as it is used in regards to triggers in the Ready An Action text and other rules relating to Immediate Reactions (or IA's in general) is informal and cannot be interpreted as the formal term "Action". It is unfortunate that the rules authors were so lax in their definition and use of terminology but so it is.

Its not so much that I can't possibly see your position as at all defensible as it is that it simply isn't more defensible than others and it doesn't seem to solve any problems. Rather it creates other problems or at least "oddities".

I think you might be being a bit harsh here. Calling a readied action that will key off of an Immediate Interrupt is a bit of a corner case, and very hard to parse out. This is what DM's are for, is to sort this kind of stuff out.

Personally, I would just call this a corner case and say that you couldn't do an Immediate Reaction directly after the Immediate Interrupt, because you're effectively allowing an Immediate Reaction ability to act as an Immediate Interrupt. In other words, treat it as if you had said "I'm going to attack as soon as that enemy tries to hit the Wizard". The enemy would make his attack, the Wizard would use Shield, the enemy would complete his attack, and then you would attack.

That sequence makes the most sense to me, and even has some RAW suport behind it (the whole keying off of enemy actions, for example), but your YMMV. I just think that allowing you to key readied actions off of Immediate Interrupt abilities just allows for too much abuse. For example, you could have your entire party ready attacks keyed off of the Wizard using Shield. When an enemy attacks the Wizard he uses Shield and then the entire party performs their actions. You could easily kill the enemy before he even completes the action that initially triggered the Shield...which hardly seems to be the designer's intention.

 

[Chris Knapp]

I loathe readied actions. They should have died a quiet death in the transition to 4e. You don't want to do anything now? Fine, delay your action.

A bit dramatic, eh?
Readied actions are the perfect counter for flyby attacks against my melee only fighter.