Warlord - punished for sacraficing

[Hypersmurf]

Now, do you find both approaches equally intuitive and easy?

No, nor need they be.

But what I saw in the telling of the story was a situation where the player of the Leader character gave a tactical command, the player being ordered said "I obey the Leader", and the result was more effective than if the command had not been obeyed.

The Warlord is having a mechanical effect that matches the flavour of the class, and that rocks.

-Hyp.

 

[CapnZapp]

They appear to understand what the rules say perfectly well. It would seem that they don't have a beef with the argument itself: merely that they would ban the tactic because it's clever and gets the players a bonus.

I'm definitely not arguing the tactic is invalid. I fully accept your reading of the rules.

My problem is that I'm not interested in taking my game to that highly technical level. Or rather, that I'm enough mindful of bonuses to realize I can't have such a stunt provide the substantial saving of one AP.

But instead of reading up on all of this, and thinking about how to best minmax all the zillions of power combinations, I'm thinking to simply outlaw that use of readied actions.

If I call it a corner case I don't mean "I don't believe it is by the rules". I mean "I can't believe the designers wanted you to benefit from that sort of stunt". I mean "I don't want my game to turn into a series of perfectly executed and painstakingly researched actions where each "mistake" loses you significant benefits".

I don't want Ready Action to play such a large role in the game. Certainly not a role which gives a heavy impression of being a minmaxer's optimization move...

That's my view, at least. Can't speak for others. And I'm certainly not trying to ban this tactic in your game, only mine.


As to how you would go about writing the specifics of the houserule that removes the trick from play, I don't know. I certainly don't intend to go into details, as this 1) forces me to read up on the details of what makes the trick work 2) would probably be abusable anyway.

Instead, a gentleman's agreement not to use ready actions in complex ways where suddenly free APs fall from heaven seems easiest and best.

And of course all players need to be made aware of this before play.

Well then, I hope I wasn't incomprehensible...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I see where you coming from. When the whole group has a similar play style a 'gentlemen's agreement' like that not only works, it hardly even need be articulated. My group, for instance, never abused 3.0 haste. It was just to obvious to be fun to abuse. The DM didn't have to say 'don't do it,' though he did say "if you don't, the bad guys won't, ether..." So, if your group is amenable to that sort of thing, by all means, leave finessing initiative order out of the game - on both sides of the DM screen.

OTOH, if your group has more a mix of play styles, you could really frustrate a player who likes the tactical and cooperative aspects of play, and picked the warlord for that very reason.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm definitely not arguing the tactic is invalid. I fully accept your reading of the rules.

My problem is that I'm not interested in taking my game to that highly technical level. Or rather, that I'm enough mindful of bonuses to realize I can't have such a stunt provide the substantial saving of one AP.

Over time, any group of players that play together for a while will develop more technical tactics that benefit the party. If you just start banning things because they seemed to require too much rules knowledge to gain an advantage, eventually you will start discouraging your players from being creative in the way they work together. I think it sets a bad precedent. This is not such an unbalancing combination that you should be using the banhammer, in my opinion. I think it is an overreaction.

 

[Herschel]

Page 291 does not change my interpretation in the least.

1. Choose the action you are readying. No problem there.

2. Choose trigger. The fighter isn't choosing the trigger, the Warlord triggers it as an additional effect of his attack.

3. Immediate reaction. It takes place AFTER a trigger condition is met.

4. It also deals with reactions to enemy actions, specifically unfriendly move actions on the part of an enemy. It's essentially an ambush tactic. It happens before that enemy's attack but after the move.

5. Under Reset Initiative it is also pertaining to an ENEMY whose attacks you went BEFORE, not after.

6. Again, this section only deals with reactions to enemies, not as part of allied powers.

7. This ability was also essentially covered in the minis game with the Air Genasi Swashbuckler.

This is why I feel allowing the whole thing is simply incorrect. I stand by what I have written and have presented very clear, concise, consistent reasons why I rule the way I have.

 

[Herschel]

There are two separate effects that you are conflating - one is the readied attack & the other is when the Fighter's NEXT turn happens. It is odd in that it compresses the Fighters two turns together but it's RAW - the fighter gets two turns between the warlords one.

LOL, take your "RAW" and place it where it belongs because it doesn't apply here. Page 291 deals with reactions to enemies. Period.

I laugh at people who use the term "RAW" like it's a magic sword and use it incorrectly. It's a nonsense term. All things are interpreted. Again, page 291 has NOTHING to say about applied tactical readied actions coordinated with allied powers.

 

[Kordeth]

LOL, take your "RAW" and place it where it belongs because it doesn't apply here. Page 291 deals with reactions to enemies. Period.

I laugh at people who use the term "RAW" like it's a magic sword and use it incorrectly. It's a nonsense term. All things are interpreted. Again, page 291 has NOTHING to say about applied tactical readied actions coordinated with allied powers.

Actually, the only place it uses the term "enemy" is under "immediate reaction" and "interrupting an enemy." "Interrupting an Enemy" is simply a clarification on how you can use a readied action to attack an enemy before it attacks you and is in no way limiting readied actions to only trigger off of immediate reactions. The use of "enemy" under "Immediate Reaction" is bizarre, and looks to be an error.

In every other instance on p. 291, including "Reset Initiative," the text refers to the trigger being a creature's action, or else it doesn't specify beyond "triggering action." Per the definition on p. 57, "creature" includes both enemies and allies.

So, we're left with three possible interpretations:

1) The single instance of "enemy" in the "Immediate Reaction" bullet point is an error, and it should say "creature."

2) The single instance of "enemy" in the "Immediate Reaction" bullet point is correct, and every instance of "creature" is wrong.

3) The RAW are 100% correct and for some inexplicable reason a readied action triggered off of a non-enemy creature's reaction has no action type.

Which one seems most likely?

 

[Herschel]

The most likely is that the whole section is based on a pre-determined reaction to an enemy's action. If someone wants to allow the sequence to work in their game, so be it. I will not allow it in mine for the very reasons I stated, which are valid, concise and consistent.

I won't even get in to the disdain I hold for people who try to use the nonsense term "RAW". Everything is interpreted, even what constitutes something as seemingly obvious in the real world as murder, let alone a game mechanic.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The most likely is that the whole section is based on a pre-determined reaction to an enemy's action.

The DMG contains an example of an orc raider using a Ready action triggered off an ally's action.

DMG p38: Individual monsters can delay and ready actions just like other monsters, so it's possible you'll end up with the two orc raiders acting at different times by the time the encounter is over. Monsters can also ready within their turn without shifting their place in the initiative order. For example, the orc raiders can both move into a flanking position and then both attack with combat advantage. Technically, the first one to move would have to ready its attack until the other one moved into position, but it all works out the same in the end.

-Hyp.

 

[Herschel]

I read that passage. Again, it did not change my interpretation for the reasons I outlined.