Warlord - punished for sacraficing

[Spatula]

I think the disconnect comes from the fact that the fighter is basically just delaying - he wants to go after the warlord to get the bonus. But a quirk in the readying rules (that your next turn is right before whoever triggered your ready action) makes that action superior to delaying (the fighter gets to act twice with the bonus instead of once) for no particular reason. So it's a minor exploit, IMO, and possibly makes delay pointless (except to delay until after the monsters go, so that you can ready an action right before the warlord's turn, to ensure that the warlord doesn't get incapacitated in the meantime).

 

[Hypersmurf]

So it's a minor exploit, IMO, and possibly makes delay pointless (except to delay until after the monsters go, so that you can ready an action right before the warlord's turn, to ensure that the warlord doesn't get incapacitated in the meantime).

Delay has several advantages over Ready.

1. You don't need to define in advance when you'll reenter the initiative order.
2. You take your entire turn at the new position, not just a single action. If you want to wait until something happens, and then move and use a standard action power, Ready won't cut it.
3. Delay doesn't use your immediate action for the round.

Ready has its own advantages, but Delay isn't useless.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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

Reading the passage about someone Readying off their ally's action doesn't change your confidence that you can only Ready off an enemy's action?

-Hyp.

 

[Herschel]

No, because it's apples and oranges. It isn't an interaction of powers in the sequence of multiple parts of a single creature's power, nor is it part of a leader's directive.

What part of my interpretation of the trigger don't you understand?

 

[Danceofmasks]

The part that directly contravenes RAW?

 

[Mistwell]

No, because it's apples and oranges. It isn't an interaction of powers in the sequence of multiple parts of a single creature's power, nor is it part of a leader's directive.

What part of my interpretation of the trigger don't you understand?

Maybe if you restating your interpretation it would help. Because it looked to me like your objection was addressed. But, you obviously feel it was not addressed. So I am missing something, and probably others are as well.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, because it's apples and oranges. It isn't an interaction of powers in the sequence of multiple parts of a single creature's power, nor is it part of a leader's directive.

It's one orc raider acting in the middle of the other orc raider's turn, triggering off his ally's action of movement. Just like the fighter acts in the middle of the warlord's turn, triggering off his ally's action of attacking.

The leader's 'directive' was simly a suggestion to the fighter as to what action he should take on his turn. The fighter could have elected to Ready an action whether or not the warlord's player suggested it; that has nothign to do with the mechanics.

What part of my interpretation of the trigger don't you understand?

You're applying the term 'enemy' more broadly than the rules do. You refer to the warlord deciding what the trigger for the action is, rather than what's actually happening - the fighter declares what the trigger is, choosing 'the warlord attacks'. You're contradicting what happens to a character's place in the initiative order after he uses a Readied action.

-Hyp.

 

[N8Ball]

First of all note that the description says "When you ready an action, you prepare to react to a CREATURE's action or an EVENT."

Page 291 does not change my interpretation in the least.

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

On the same page so far...

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

Huh? The fighter is the only one who CAN choose the trigger for HIS action. He may just choose what the Warlord tells him to, but it's still the fighter who must declare the trigger, target and action that he's readying when he uses his standard action to Ready an action. The Warlords attack may BE the trigger the fighter plans to act on, but the fighter can still change his mind and choose not to act.

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

All kosher here.

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.

Still onboard, but it's worth noting that this section starts with "If you want to (do this), you should (do that)." It's basicly a helper section for a particular cirumstance and desired outcome and details how you might use a readied action to act within another creatures POWER (after the movement and before the attack of A POWER). Acting within another creatures TURN sequence should be peanuts after that clarification.

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

Huh? You just said that your attack was after theirs. (see point 3)

What it SAYS is, "After you resolve your readied action..." which you already stated...

... takes place AFTER a trigger condition is met.

then you reset your initiative to a place before the trigger.
"ENEMY" does not exist in this section, does it? ("NO SENSEI!")

Then you "move your place in the initiative order to DIRECTLY before the CREATURE or EVENT that triggered..." This wording is consistent with the beginning description and the example in the DMG.

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

Where does it say that?!?
Please point out to me in the text where the implication comes from that this is only allowed for enemy actions, because it certainly isn't there explicitly.

 

[Spatula]

Delay has several advantages over Ready.

1. You don't need to define in advance when you'll reenter the initiative order.

This doesn't mean much when you can define triggers that are almost certainly going to take place ("when Bob attacks the Foogle"). Remove the 'almost' if the Foogle doesn't get to act inbetween you & Bob, which isn't hard to set up.

2. You take your entire turn at the new position, not just a single action. If you want to wait until something happens, and then move and use a standard action power, Ready won't cut it.

This is true, although you might be able to take those other actions before the ready. Also this has less of an impact now vs in 3e since there's no more full attack or 1 round spells.

3. Delay doesn't use your immediate action for the round.

Ok, but this is irrelevant for most characters, isn't it?

 

[Hypersmurf]

This doesn't mean much when you can define triggers that are almost certainly going to take place ("when Bob attacks the
Foogle").

But you aren't always delaying until a known event; sometimes you're delaying until an unknown event. "I don't want to act just yet, but maybe when the situation changes, I'll see an opportunity." Readying requires you to decide what the trigger is in advance. With Delay, you can choose to act when something unforeseen happens, and tailor your response without having had to guess.

This is true, although you might be able to take those other actions before the ready.

You might. But on the occasions when you can't, that's when Delaying is better.

Ok, but this is irrelevant for most characters, isn't it?

The character in our example is a Fighter, who uses his Immediate Action for his Combat Challenge attack. If the Fighter takes a Readied action, the monster can Shift with impunity, or attack the Warlord - the Fighter is sacrificing some of his Defenderness.

-Hyp.