Warlord - punished for sacraficing

[Spatula]

The character in our example is a Fighter, who uses his Immediate Action for his Combat Challenge attack.

touché.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

And you'd be rightly so.

You should never debate or change rules when you're playing.

What a good DM (who shares my opinion) would do, is change the rules either before the session (if he has read this thread) or afterwards (if he's introduced to the trick by someone like you).

If, on the other hand, what you really wanted to say was "As a player, I'd be pretty annoyed if the DM doesn't let me use any and all perfectly legal bits of work" then you have apparently never heard about house rules.

If you're talking about house rules in your game, then obviously that's your perogative as DM to enforce them. We happen to disagree on their need in this case.

But I strongly disagree with the idea that banning things is going to solve anything. As a player in that game, I'd end up wondering what is and isn't going to get banned because it's "too complicated". The reason I bring this up is that I would suggest that you talk to your players about this sort of situation now (assuming you are actually DMing a 4e game) so that they are aware.

What I mean by this is that I don't particularly care for the argument that players are somehow entitled to everything in the official books, just because they brought them along.

I don't know you, but perhaps you would say "if I don't get to use this particular trick, I don't want to play in your campaign". If you did, I could respect that.

What I don't respect is when players argue it isn't the DM who's in charge.

Basically, your response does not carry much weight, unless, of course, you are talking about the "changing rules in the middle of play" aspect only, in which case I totally agree.

My worried response that you're abitrarily banning things because you think they're too complicated (regardless of whether or not the players are fine with it?) doesn't hold much weight? Well, I agree it holds no more weight than anyone else's opinion, but this idea that "players aren't entitled to everything in the official books" would make me run a mile from your game, frankly.

The cornerstone of RPG's is being able to rely on the core books, surely? Flavour changes, decisions on races that are and aren't available, or changes to powers - I can completely understand all of that. But changing a basic part of the game (the Ready Action) because you think it's too complicated because of a single example would make me wonder what other rules are going to get changed mid-campaign.

I do wonder, again, if you are actually running a 4e game or whether all of these rules discussions you participate in are purely theoretical for you?

 

[Herschel]

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.

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.

I'm ruling that the readied attack is the attack that is part of the Warlord's action, not a separate action. If you want the fighter's action to "go off" before the Warlord's as if it were an immediate interrupt, no bonus because the Warlord's bonus does not yet apply. The secondary attack is the result of an opportunity created after the Warlord's swing.

In all your examples, and in the rules in the books, the readied action happens BEFORE the attack that would trigger it. It's as an immediate interrupt. The issue is that the bonus does not apply until after the Warlord swings. It's a condition executed as a result of said swing.

I've judged world championship level DnD events at Gen Con, so I'm no stranger to making rulings on attack sequences. I have outlined why I have ruled the way I ruled with clear, concise and consistent reasoning.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

An excellent choice of comparison!

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.

Sure, if a player realized this trick even before choosing class, then there would be a moment of frustration.

The only good solution would of course be to offer that player full compensation. In other words, "you can reverse all your choices. In effect, feel free to create a completely different character if you like".

Of course, if that player would still feel frustration or resentment, chances are his playing style would not be much like mine anyway (obsessing over minutiae is not a good trait to have when playing D&D specifically, as it is one game that really can go down the drain if every little bit is to be examined over and over again, in the hopes of finding Just One More Plus. I remember the 3E Excel sheets with a shudder)...

But for most people (though perhaps not everybody in this thread), I expect this change to be almost completely uncontroversial. Again, with the friendly assumption the DM acts with finesse.

And not in clumsy heavy-handed way as some posters here seem to take for granted...

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Interesting.

When I read that passage I thought "Great! So the DMG encourages DMs like me who doesn't want play bogged down by technicalities to simply say "okay, there's two orcs and only one of you. So they both get flanking" without having to worry about how, or even if, this is possible by the rules as written".

I certainly did not take it as a recommendation that "even enemies can get technical and should be using the rules to their fullest extent possible by the raw."

We sure have different viewpoints, don't we, Hyp?

 

[Caliban]

We sure have different viewpoints, don't we, Hyp?

Guess which one is actually correct!

 

[CapnZapp]

If you're talking about house rules in your game, then obviously that's your perogative as DM to enforce them. We happen to disagree on their need in this case.

But I strongly disagree with the idea that banning things is going to solve anything. As a player in that game, I'd end up wondering what is and isn't going to get banned because it's "too complicated". The reason I bring this up is that I would suggest that you talk to your players about this sort of situation now (assuming you are actually DMing a 4e game) so that they are aware.



My worried response that you're abitrarily banning things because you think they're too complicated (regardless of whether or not the players are fine with it?) doesn't hold much weight? Well, I agree it holds no more weight than anyone else's opinion, but this idea that "players aren't entitled to everything in the official books" would make me run a mile from your game, frankly.

The cornerstone of RPG's is being able to rely on the core books, surely? Flavour changes, decisions on races that are and aren't available, or changes to powers - I can completely understand all of that. But changing a basic part of the game (the Ready Action) because you think it's too complicated because of a single example would make me wonder what other rules are going to get changed mid-campaign.

I do wonder, again, if you are actually running a 4e game or whether all of these rules discussions you participate in are purely theoretical for you?

I am running a 4E game right now, thank you very much.

I have also participated in two 3E campaigns, both going from level 1 to 15+.

I am certainly no stranger to complications.


No, I'm opposed to how these rules (readying, APs and immediate interrupts) for reasons that can't simply be dismissed as "being complicated".

I find them to be a flaw in the rules. They're inelegant. They're complex.

And they offer a second way of doing this, that 1) by far is the more technical one 2) thus easily missed by newcomers 3) but yet the mechanically superior one.

Without 3) there wouldn't be much to complain about. Then it would simply be a quirk, a slightly humorous anecdote. Something there would be no harm leaving as it is.

But this is decidedly not the case here. As has been amply shown, you gain substantial bonuses by mastering these intricate rules interactions.

And where does the designer intent come into this? How does my game become better by all-but-forcing everyone to read up on and use these obtuse mechanics.

For guys that are almost-professional D&D judges of sorts, I do not expect to get my point across. For them, it would be easy to say "just learn the game".

But D&D isn't meant as an elite game for professionals.

I maintain that this usage contrasts heavily with the simplicity inherent in almost all other design aspects of the game. I don't like it because it sticks out like a sore thumb.

I can almost see it now... a 5E down the line, "now with simpler initiative rulings"...

So, no, it's not just because it's complicated.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In all your examples, and in the rules in the books, the readied action happens BEFORE the attack that would trigger it. It's as an immediate interrupt.

A readied action is an immedaite reaction, not an immediate interrupt. It occurs after the triggering action.

The issue is that the bonus does not apply until after the Warlord swings. It's a condition executed as a result of said swing.

That's right. And "after the warlord swings" is exactly when the fighter gets to take his readied action.

In 3E: A readied action occurs just before the triggering action.
In 4E: A readied action occurs just after the triggering action.
In both editions: After you take your readied action, your place in the initiative order is moved to just before that of the creature who triggered your action.

-Hyp.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

@CapnZapp:

So if all players including their DM don't use delay and ready because they missed it, they don't understand it or whatever, is their game less fun?
Are there any problems caused by ignoring the delay/ready options?

I remember fights where we did absolutely fine w/o delay/ready.
Are we playing the game wrong if we don't need those options every time?

It's like if you say, you need an optimized char or you can't play D&D. - It is not true. You only need them if you want to use some cool uber-combo but uber-combos are a feature not required at least in those games that I play or serve as a DM.

 

[Milambus]

Wow, I really didn't expect a huge debate over Readied Actions when I posted what I considered a simple story about how fun it can be to play a Warlord.

For the most part Hypersmurf has said everything I would have in regards to the rules debate. (At least its what I would have said if I had more time to read the forums this week.)

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.

That quote from the DMG is a good example of how most people use Delayed Actions, waiting until an ally has moved into flank before attacking such that both players can benefit from the flank bonus. So I would hope that any DM that rules that their players are not allowed to use Delayed Actions like I did in my example, would also be sure the run each of their NPCes turns completely before moving the next NPC.

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).

There have been a few comments about how Readied Actions are mechanically better than Delaying because of things like this. I agree that a Readied Action is better in this case, and in some other cases, but it is not better in every case.

The game provides two options for a player to postpone taking their actions until after the end of their turn. They both have different costs and benefits. The question of which one is best really depends on the circumstances.

With a Readied Action you are taking a gamble that the specific trigger will occur and when it does occur that you can still use the specific power that you chose. The payoff for that gamble is that your initiative is placed before the triggering action. Hypersmurf already mentioned that Readied Actions use your Immediate Action for that round also.

When you Delay, there is no gamble. You get to chose when to take your turn, and may do so at any point. As soon as you stop delaying, your initiative is place in that position for the rest of the combat.

While the two actions have the similar function of postponing some of your turn, they do it in very different ways. Each with its own costs and benefits.