Timeline for Are there any mechanical issues with removing the concept of "triggers" for readied actions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 24, 2021 at 4:03 | vote | accept | Alex F | ||
| Apr 23, 2021 at 20:23 | comment | added | Sean Duggan | Ah, good point. | |
| Apr 23, 2021 at 19:56 | history | edited | Darth Pseudonym | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Apr 23, 2021 at 19:42 | history | edited | Darth Pseudonym | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 12 characters in body
|
| Apr 23, 2021 at 19:19 | history | edited | Darth Pseudonym | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 59 characters in body
|
| Apr 23, 2021 at 19:04 | history | edited | Darth Pseudonym | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 59 characters in body
|
| Apr 23, 2021 at 18:55 | comment | added | Darth Pseudonym | @SeanDuggan "When the trigger occurs, you can either take your reaction right after the trigger finishes or ignore the trigger." A jumpy player might do that, but there's nothing in the rules that would force it to happen just because they said "first guy" rather than "first enemy". | |
| Apr 23, 2021 at 18:51 | history | edited | Darth Pseudonym | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 14 characters in body
|
| Apr 23, 2021 at 14:23 | comment | added | Sean Duggan | As a side note, the "shoot the first guy to come through the door" readied action also can result in the fun "The door opens. Your crossbow twangs. Your ally, the Duke, looks very startled as he stares at the quarrel lodged in his chest and begins to collapse into the room" situation. | |
| Apr 23, 2021 at 13:55 | comment | added | Austin Hemmelgarn | The other aspect here though is that it’s never a bad idea to encourage players to state triggers in a practical manner. When I GM, I make a point to double check with the player when they state a trigger that sounds like it’s not actually what they want to do. When I originally started doing this, most of my players very quickly shifted how they stated triggers so that they were both accurately expressing the condition they wanted, and were generic enough to allow for reasonable flexibility to deal with surprises. | |
| Apr 23, 2021 at 12:36 | comment | added | RevanantBacon | @AlexF The general idea is have triggers be less specific and/or allow looser interpretation of the triggers, and I agree with Darth, that probably doesn't need a whole houserule just to call it out since it's a pretty minor thing. | |
| Apr 23, 2021 at 11:24 | comment | added | Mołot | +1 specifically for parts 2) and 4) of your answer. | |
| Apr 23, 2021 at 4:19 | comment | added | Alex F | Fair distinction, thanks for clearing it up. | |
| Apr 23, 2021 at 4:03 | comment | added | Darth Pseudonym | I guess I also see a pretty big difference between lenient interpretation and just take the action any time you want. If the Bulette un-burrows behind some rocks and comes running out into view and you decide to allow the archer to take the shot when it enters view rather than sticking hard to "comes out of the ground", that's not really the same as letting the archer just hold his shot until literally any time in the next round. They can't just stand there and wait to see how the Fighter's turn plays out before they decide to take the shot. | |
| Apr 23, 2021 at 3:52 | comment | added | Darth Pseudonym | I think things like interpreting players' actions leniently on a case-by-case basis is just part of good DMing (and not just in reference to Ready), so it doesn't need to have a specific rules backing. A house-rule implies there's a mechanical change to the system that comes up often enough that it needs to addressed loud and clear to the players before the game even starts. To me, implementing a house rule is a larger and more serious step, and in this case it doesn't seem warranted when what you want to accomplish is really just not being a dillweed to your players. | |
| Apr 23, 2021 at 1:48 | comment | added | Alex F | While I certainly follow your logic, your conclusion seems confusing. It sounds like, in scenarios 1 and 2, you're effectively suggesting I implicitly use this house rule without actually codifying it, by being lenient with descriptions. In scenario 3, it sounds like they shouldn't get the reaction regardless of the ruling on triggers (possibly involving the Surprised condition, but that's an aside). While this is a good, thoughtful answer, may I ask you to clarify the difference between making it explicit vs implicit? | |
| Apr 23, 2021 at 0:14 | history | answered | Darth Pseudonym | CC BY-SA 4.0 |