Readying to cast a spell

[Pielorinho]

Fair enough, Artoomis. With a spell or an attack, could they choose a different target, do you think?

Daniel

 

[Keith]

“The Magic Missile/Shield combo was exactly what got me started thinking about this. While I agree that this probably wasn't the intent of the rules, does any of you see any game-breaking issues that may come of allowing something like this?”

Certainly, that is what I was trying to suggest. Basically, if characters can now invoke the correct defensive spell by readying and finding out which one they need, they are substantially more difficult to fight, and as a result the CRs of opponents are no longer balanced versus them, and the whole XP system is knocked out of kilter. Also, players would have to learn to play this new way, or opposing casters run by a DM who understands their new house rule will smoke the PCs.

 

[Pielorinho]

Certainly, that is what I was trying to suggest. Basically, if characters can now invoke the correct defensive spell by readying and finding out which one they need, they are substantially more difficult to fight, and as a result the CRs of opponents are no longer balanced versus them, and the whole XP system is knocked out of kilter. Also, players would have to learn to play this new way, or opposing casters run by a DM who understands their new house rule will smoke the PCs.

I think the solution to this is to make it clear that folks are readying actions -- if they want to suggest otherwise, throw in a bluff check.

Bob might get his shield spell up and thereby counter John's first magic missile, but the next time Bob readies an action, John's likely to whip out a wand and blast him, or drink a potion, or throw a poisoned dagger, or move to a strategically superior position.

Remember how I said you've lost the gamble when someone's readied action goes off against you? The reverse is also true: if you don't trigger their readied action, then you win the gamble, by making them lose their turn.

Incidentally, I'd also allow bluff checks to trick someone: if you think someone is readying an action against you, you can make a bluff check to make them think you're taking a specific course of action without actually doing it. Next round, John can say the first couple words of a fireball spell; if Bob falls for the bait and casts protection from fire, John can just laugh evilly. I'd probably make this a standard action, similar to feinting.

Daniel

 

[Hypersmurf]

Fair enough, Artoomis. With a spell or an attack, could they choose a different target, do you think?

In 3.5, with a spell, absolutely. The target is chosen when the spell comes into effect.

In 3E, it's hazy. The target is chosen when the spell comes into effect, but all relevant parameters (including target) are chosen at the start of casting. Both those rules are found on the same page in the 3E PHB

I would have no problem with letting someone deliberately flub a spell (burning the slot to no effect), though. Example - BBEG is in melee with several PCs. The wizard decides to drop a fireball on all of them, hoping the PCs can suck up the damage - the BBEG is who he intends to hit, but there's no avoiding all his friends.

The BBEG's readied action triggers, and he DDs away. I'd let the wizard not-complete the Fireball spell... but it would cost him the slot (either through deliberately fumbling the components, or choosing a point of origin beyond line of effect, or whatever).

With an attack, I'd allow them to continue with an attack, trip, grapple, disarm, or nothing, on any valid target. I wouldn't let them Sunder, since that uses the Sunder action, not the Attack action

-Hyp.

 

[0-hr]

I've not seen indications that a character is allowed to change their basic action based on a readied action that they triggered. If John casts magic missile at Bob, and Bob's readied shield goes off, then John can't choose to cast a different spell. He can choose not to cast MM, and I'd also let him choose a different target for MM, but he couldn't cast a different spell in addition to beginning a MM.

Sounds like a good interpretation. I agree completely.

This is any area that really needed some more text in the core books. Lacking that, it's up to the DM to adjucate and I like your approach. Don't let the nay-sayers talk you out of what you think is right - they've no more authority than you.

The DMG suggests a WIS(15) check to override a readied response. The same sort of thing could easily be applied to someone reacting to a readied action. Make the check or you continue on with what you were doing.