Should you be able to dodge a fireball by readying an action?

[gnfnrf]

Readied actions are confusing.

About the initial circumstances, considered simply.

Without readied actions, a player can do nothing to avoid being in the area of effect of a fireball. The aiming character automatically wins that contest.

With one interpretation of readied actions, the aimer can do nothing to keep his foe in the area of effect, as long as the foe continually readies actions. The target automatically wins that contest.

Neither of these are "realistic". Neither make for interesting or dynamic play. However, the designers of DnD seem to use the Reflex save to try to represent this mini conflict of aiming and spell power (represented by save DC) vs dodging (represented by Reflex bonus).

It therefore does not seem out of line to adjust the reflex save to represent extra effort in this case, possibly on a sliding scale based on movement. Temporarily grant evasion as well? Maybe.

However, as was voiced earlier, the precedent set by moving out of the AoE is disturbing.

I have another readied action question, but I'll spin it off into its own thread.

EDIT: Here http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=211414
--
gnfnrf

 

[irdeggman]

Okay, see, this is why I didn't post this thread in Rules in the first place. I was less concerned with whether the rules (all praise be to the almighty RAW) allow me to do this cool thing than I was if you think that from a narrative or realism perspective it should be possible.

Would you allow a character to ready an action to dodge a bullet?

That is much closer to the actual condition being paralleled than is dodging an arrow.

 

[Elethiomel]

Would you allow a character to ready an action to dodge a bullet?

That is much closer to the actual condition being paralleled than is dodging an arrow.

I disagree. Arrows are fast enough to represent the fireball bead IMO.

 

[Mistwell]

No, because there's no "tick" of gametime between the beginning and end of the Fireball spell. Once the [cast fireball] action is initiated, it can't be stopped or interrupted by the Ready action.

You sound like you are interpreting from the old version of the rule, not the new one. The new one eliminates all reference to actions. It uses "whatever" and "activities" and "conditions", not actions. "I see a fireball" should be just as valid as anything else to trigger a readied action...and the fireball obviously does travel since intervening objects can get in the way. It's not instantaneous or else it would be teleporting to the destination and intervening objects could not get in the way.

Think of each action as a line of code in BASIC (or some other programming language). Each action is "executed" by the game in order, one at a time. Once the action is begun, it runs all the way through to the end.

Yeah, it's not action-based, and appears like it was never supposed to be action based but some people misinterpreted the readied action rule to be about actions. Think about it as conditions, activities, or whatever you can describe. It does not have to be tied to a specific action of a creature.

 

[mvincent]

Would you allow a character to ready an action to dodge a bullet?

An unspoken caveat for readying an action is that you must be able to perceive the triggering condition. If one could perceive the bullet coming towards them (difficult, but not impossible at longer ranges, especially with tracer rounds), it might be reasonable to let the readied action work.

But hey, I personally would allow it to work even at short range (cuz I'm just that nice... or I just like cinematic play).

In any case, based on it's description: a fireball bead seems more observable than a bullet.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Yeah, it's not action-based, and appears like it was never supposed to be action based but some people misinterpreted the readied action rule to be about actions.

I would say, rather, it was action-based, and appears like - until the publication of the Rules Compendium - it was supposed to be action based.

Remember, according to Wizards' statement about errata, if this were the correction of an error, it would be released in a free form. Since it only appears in the Rules Compendium, which costs money, it is not the correction of an error, but rather a change to an existing rule; Ready has not been corrected to remove a misconception about triggering off an action, but rather has been changed to revise the existing rule about triggering off an action.

-Hyp.

 

[Mistwell]

I would say, rather, it was action-based, and appears like - until the publication of the Rules Compendium - it was supposed to be action based.

Before I read the rules compendium, in this very thread, I said I thought they meant "event". So, there was at least a dispute over what it meant.

Remember, according to Wizards' statement about errata, if this were the correction of an error, it would be released in a free form. Since it only appears in the Rules Compendium, which costs money, it is not the correction of an error, but rather a change to an existing rule; Ready has not been corrected to remove a misconception about triggering off an action, but rather has been changed to revise the existing rule about triggering off an action.

-Hyp.

The statement about errata being free was not RAW. It was, what we call in the law, "mere puffery".

I think they clarified the rule to explain it meant what I thought it meant all along, but even if you disagree, I am not sure how that is relevant. It's still the rule, and it still takes precedent over prior rules.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's still the rule, and it still takes precedent over prior rules.

Absolutely. As of the publication of the Rules Compendium, readied actions no longer trigger only off actions like they used to.

-Hyp.

 

[Mistwell]

Absolutely. As of the publication of the Rules Compendium, readied actions no longer trigger only off actions like they used to.

-Hyp.

 

[Nifft]

Hyp -- I can see no obvious flaw in your reasoning. Your interpretation is supported by the rules.

However, I don't see how my interpretation -- that declared actions don't get to be re-declared just because they're spells -- is unsupported.

I think we've hit a grey area in the rules. :\ I wouldn't mind being corrected, but I don't think I like the implication that spellcasters get more freedom than mundane classes. They have enough goodies already, IMHO.

Oh well, -- N